Posted on 05/07/2018 8:29:42 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
Connecticut’s legislature has passed a bill that would give the state’s Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote nationally.
The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
This discussion has highlighted this issue and points out that many on this forum are not informed on the scheme and the Constitutional issue. Given that Freepers tend to be much better informed than the average voter, there is work to be done.
Most states allocate all of their electoral votes to the winner of the state level contest any many have laws to bind the electors to that outcome. The Constitution did not anticipate this practice and, of course, did not anticipate the formation of political parties. They believed that states would select among their own citizens, people who were well educated, well informed, and who would vote in the best interests of the state. This was the criteria that had been used to select delegates to the initial Congress and to the State Constitutional Conventions. Given the lack of email and Twitter, it was the only practical way to get it done.
The states, individually and independently decided that their best interests could be advanced by pooling their electoral college members and voting as a block. They adopted a method to put a system that would achieve that result. It has served us well, but two states have modified their system to give one electoral vote for the winner of the congressional districts, with two votes for the winner of the overall state vote. This system has not been challenged.
The popular vote compact has been around for a long time with the following states already committed to the scheme:
CA, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA. The trigger for executing the compact occurs when the members of the compact collectively control 270 electoral votes. So, right now it’s an academic exercise, with about 100 electoral votes to go before the compact gels. Note that all of the states joining are reliably Democrat for the Election of President. If they were achieve the 270 EV threshold, the activation of the compact would favor the Blue states and favor the urban centers nationwide. Its a scheme to put urban areas in a position of perpetual power which is why we see all Democrat states on the list. But, they are running out of Democrat states, so the chances of this ever coming to pass is pretty low.
However, if this is every invoked, at least two Constitutional challenges will be made. First, the voters of these states can sue that their rights have been violated on the basis of the 14th Amendment. Their voting franchise will have be hijacked by the compact. Second, the restrictions against confederations among the states will be argued asserting that the compact represents an unconstitutional confederation. One or both will likely prevail.
The Democrats will continue to work tirelessly to stymie the power of the voter to reject their policies and their power to include their current plan to overthrow the duly elected government of the United States. Vigilance is required.
If not 1 CT voter casts a vote on election day, the E.C. votes will automatically be distributed to what all the other states voters decided by their simple majority. Mob rule of 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what's for dinner.
So a state controlled by republicans can constitutionally require all EVs go to the republican candidate regardless of the actual vote.
Don’t accept or certify ANY votes from CT on the national level. Or let’s just fracture the union into red and blue...that would be best anyway.
And yet i’ve seen a bunch of comments form people in CT joyous that their vote is now meaningless. All because they hate Trump.
This is just a reaction by the left because they hate Trump. The first time CT is forced to give it’s EC votes to the Rep candidate when a Dem won the state they will be screaming disenfranchisement at the top of their lungs.
What’s the difference? As long as the state is limited to its amount of EV...
Lawyers have created another money fountain, both sides taxpayer funded. Like a golden lava flow out of Ft. Knox.
I don't think that "equal protection" applies because "the people" don't vote for President.
Article II gives the power to the state legislatures on how to determine electors to the Electoral College, therefore there is no "presidential vote" for their to be "equal protection" applied.
Within each state, the legislature of that state determines the method of choosing, so "the people" within each state have equal protection, including no protection at all if their state legislature chooses to let themselves select the electors without a state vote (which is perfectly constitutional under Article II).
Across states, the methods of choosing vary, so it is impossible to claim equal protection against a plenary power of the states to choose their own methods. California cannot claim "equal protection" to force Nebraska or Maine to do away with Congressional district allocation because California chooses to do it another way. By the same reasoning, no state can force another state to not allocate its electoral college votes to the popular vote winner simply because it chooses not to.
As a hypothetical, suppose a state decides to award its electoral college votes by a majority vote of the state legislature. This state therefore has no popular vote at all. What does that do to the National Popular Vote compact if one or more states have no popular vote? Do the compacting states try to force the states with no popular vote to choose a different method that relies on a popular vote? Do we have a case where a state demands for itself the Article II right to choose a method while denying another state that same right?
-PJ
“Allowing the will of the voters of any state to be trumped by the national popular vote is a basic violation of our constitutional structure, and I think that even most liberals on the court will agree.”
There is no such thing as the will of the voters when it comes to choosing presidential electors.
That power was delegated to state legislatures under Art II, Sec 1.
You vote for president only in 50 states and D.C. But parties give convention delegates to territories and Americans oversea.
CT gives away the power if its citizens to those living in larger states.
The scheme only goes into effect if states representing 270 or more electoral votes join it.
So no, Bush wouldn’t have gotten the votes in 2004.
I don’t know if the scheme passes constitutional muster or not, it’s clever, but it’s no threat to pass in enough states, not currently anyway. If we let pig democrats take over enough states though...
‘So a state controlled by republicans can constitutionally require all EVs go to the republican candidate regardless of the actual vote.’
states have two slates of electors for the parties...so that when you vote in the presidential election, you are actually voting for the slate of electors selected by the party...
‘If we let pig democrats take over enough states though...’
currently 171 EV’s are enacted; 118 are pending in current legislative session; a total of 289...PA and OH are the pending ones to watch; hold on to your hat...
And it’s long past time to start lining the streets with democrats... From every tree and lamp post. Those who can’t fit along the street should be lined up along a wall and shot.
‘Please read the article I posted.’
where is it...?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.