Regardless of party, it amazes me that any state would willingly give away the leverage of having their own EC result. The money will only flow to the states with the biggest populations.
Americans have been on a long, slow journey towards a powerful (tyrannical?) central government controlling every facet of life in America since Lincoln and the Civil War. Its been speeding up the past few decades.
Very typical of Democrats to prefer mob rule over a constitutional process
when the LEFT loses
they immediately try to change the rules
in their favor
The Constitution only means something to Democrats when they agree with it.
> an interstate agreement designed to bypass the electoral college and choose the president by popular vote <
States have a wide leeway in choosing how to assign their electoral votes. But this seems unconstitutional to me. Suppose the majority of the state’s voters chooses the candidate from Party A. But the candidate from Party B wins the nationwide vote.
Then majority rule does not apply in that state. The majority voted for A, but B gets all the electoral votes.
States can't enact an interstate compact without Congressional approval, but no state (with or without Congressional approval) can give away their Constitutional plenary power. The Supremacy clause of the Constitution says that anything IN the Constitution is supreme over any law.
That means that a state like Michigan can renege on the National Vote Scheme any time they want because they never really give up their Constitutional plenary power. Congress cannot take that power away from a state even if the state joins an interstate compact.
In fact, states may argue that any compact that involves giving up a Constitutional plenary power is not subject to interstate compacts. Those compacts were reserved for interstate commerce agreements, water rights, mineral rights, border issues, etc. Congress can approve "treaties" between states, but they cannot force a state to stay in a compact that involves a Constititional power.
-PJ
The hijos of Jose y Maria will not have to put up with Democratic Party tyranny.
I don’t recall their complaining about the EC when Bill Clinton was elected with only 43% of the popular vote in 1992, and was re-elected in 1996 with 49%. If they are concerned about popular vote majorities (not pluralities), Mrs. Clinton didn’t win a majority either — only 48%. Her problem was that she way overperformed in California. Take away the California vote from both her and Trump, and Trump wins both the national popular vote by a majority, and the EC.
No electoral college means no reason to stay in this union.
Neither do I! That is NOT fair to the rest of the country!
CWS:
LSU Florida
4 .. 3
4 .. 24
18 .. 4
Who won?
Let me know when the democrat party decides their primary with a popular vote, instead of a state by state delegate & super delegate process.
“I won’t hold my breath.”
With the exception of the Carolinas, Wisconsin, Alaska, and Arizona (and possibly Michigan and Minnesota if we really stretch things), those states are all likely to go Democrat .
It would be strange to see New York, California, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, Maryland, Illinois, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii and DC electors forced to vote Republican, but knowing Democrats, I don't think they'd do it.
.