Geez...
Maybe, maybe not ...
The article that is the basis of the thread does not specify exactly what the National Popular Vote [NPV] debate is all about.
What the states are wanting to do is this: allow you to vote in your state and awarding the electoral votes of your state to the winner of the popular vote in your state.
EXCEPT that IF the winner of your state LOSES the NPV. Then, your state takes away the electoral votes of the winner of your state and awards them to the winner of the NPV.
READ your Constitution ...
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Each state can select its electors in any manner it wishes - BUT it might NOT be able to choose its electors based on the votes of citizens of other states.
The Supreme Court has previously held that:
The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution.
HOWEVER, the Supreme Court has ALSO held that:
When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).
The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. See, e.g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 665 (1966) (“[O]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”). It must be remembered that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964).
The DEMS bank on the Supreme Court ruling that the states' right to choose electors is plenary [per the Constitution], while opponents cite the Supreme Court has ALSO ruled that every citizen's vote MUST be treated equally and that 14th Amendment Equal Protection applies.
If a state takes away its electoral votes from the winner of its state and awards them to the winner of the NPV, then the state is valuing the votes of citizens of other states over its own citizens ...
This is a constitutional question that will have to be decided by the Supreme Court IF it ever happens ...
If the NPV is ruled to be unconstitutional - then YES, a constitutional amendment would be required ...
Thank you for some sanity. The socialists can propose anything they like, but certain things need a Constitutional amendment. Changing or eliminating the Electoral College will not happen in our lifetime. Hell, we can't even get the Congress to vote 2/3rds on a Balanced Budget Amendment.
The Constitution has been taking a back seat in both Houses and in SCOTUS for so long that even the slightest drip could become a waterfall - when things like this start to get a foothold in any debate, we need to be ready to pounce on it.
We've been "waiting for it to get bad enough to take action" for so long that we have probably over-waited and the despots are way ahead.