Blue states band together looking to bypass Electoral College

The Hill ^ | 03/03/19 | Michael Burke

[rxsid]

That's like asking...how does one explain the actor Reagan beating out the incumbent Brown big time in 1966 CA governors race?

The irony of the two states historical political party strength is that Texas has elected more Democrats at both the state and national level, than California has.

Since Texas doesn't register by party, it's more difficult to find trends, but the way Texas is being swamped with illegal aliens and how migration into the state is generally occurring (more growth in liberal big cities), it is not unreasonable to think Texas could go back to being blue in the near term.

Texas Population Projections 2010 to 205

 

https://demographics.texas.gov/Infographics/2017/UrbanTexasPt2

[rxsid]

** Texas Population Projections 2010 to 2050

[Verginius Rufus]

What is to stop the legislatures in Democrat-dominated states from rescinding their participation in the compact if Trump wins the popular vote?

The whole scheme incentivizes voter fraud in all the big cities--especially in states which are reliably Democratic. Before it could be taken for granted that the Democrat would carry the state so no strong reason to manufacture a lot of fraudulent votes. Now the fraudulent votes could swing the national outcome.

[arrogantsob]

That will be a helluva case and I am sure that this idea will wind up before the Supremes within a few decades or sooner.

You are right about the unknown implications to be drawn from the amendments wrt to this issue. I have no doubt that the Founders would have considered it constitutional (as long as no state confederacy is formed to procure it.)

[jjotto]

Such a compact becomes the equivalent of federal law enforced by federal courts. Changing the rules AFTER an election is a big no-no. Ask Al Gore.

[arrogantsob]

Reading the Constitution is like reading the Bible, one thinks he understands each but then a bottle comes flying out of Left field and whacks you in the head. Then I get all confused again.

[arrogantsob]

Urban areas are a larger percentage of the population every year, the leeches therein provide the Demons with their instruments.

How is this to be countered? Chicago has not had a Republican mayor in 75 yrs.

[Verginius Rufus]

So if it looks like Trump is going to win, they will have to change their rule just before election day?

How many states have a way of forcing the electors to vote as they are pledged to? It seems that in recent elections there has always been one or more "faithless electors." It would be more if a Democrat was being told to vote for a Republican.

[jjotto]

So if it looks like Trump is going to win, they will have to change their rule just before election day?

That's a very good question!

If the compact allows such short notice for withdrawal, it would seem to be OK.

But such issues may be why the Court would ultimately disallow such a withdrawal even under the rules. A campaign is conducted for two years under one set of rules and assumptions, and then in the last few days, the rules change. Big problem.

Also note that even one state pulling out may dissolve the whole compact because the compact would drop below the 270 vote threshold. Such a foreseeable consequence is another reason the Court may simply declare such a compact unConstitutional all the way around.

[nicollo]

Uh, no. The Constitution assigns numbers of electors by representation in Congress but in no way prescribes how they are selected.

Go do your own homework, I’m already tired of doing yours.

[TheNext]

A State or Congress may not post fact modify an Elector’s certified tally. Period.

A State can only declare rural red counties have no Elector, that all Electors belong to the red big city capital. That is suicide, so States avoid that.

That is NOT what compact States are doing. They are modifying certified tallies. Clearly illegal & punishable.

Free people, who know better, best understand this or the Republic is doomed. Readers at Free Republic should know better, but do not.

There is no legal way to perform the compact.
None.

[david1292]

Actually no, they can’t. States are actually not allowed to make deals with each other against other states without permission from Congress.

That’s to prevent situations where certain states could hog resources and control certain monopolies.

So this idea would be unconstitutional unless Congress approves of it since you have a number of states making a deal with each other. Not to mention you can see the intent is to go around the Constitution. The Constitutional has an electoral college. If you want it by popular vote, you need to get rid of that through the amendment process.

The Supreme Court would kill this whole thing.

[zencycler]

Upon further consideration though, i think the Constitution empowers state legislatures to vote their ECs in any manner they choose, so I doubt one state could block another from using its vote totals in their own popular vote methodology. Barring SCOTUS barring the anti-EC strategy, which they may not be able to do, then perhaps the counter-move I proposed by pro-EC states might be to only remedy. But if some other works better, and can get by SCOTUS, then I hope it’s found and used.

[Political Junkie Too]

It's always going to be a point of contention.

"Any manner they choose" has Constitutional limitations. They cannot choose a method that violates other parts of the Constitution. They cannot choose a method that forces other states to give up their own Constitutional powers or protections.

An extreme literalist might say that the Framers never envisioned instantaneous nationwide communications where each state's total vote count were available in near real time, therefore the method of choosing would never have thought to be expressly limited to only the votes within the state's control, given how it took days or weeks to receive news from other states.

Others might argue that the states were sovereign and would never have ratified the Constitution if it included methods where other states can override any single state's Constitutional powers, as the NPV compact does when it disenfranchises the will of the state's voters to the will of larger states' voters.

Another argument is that the compact is unnecessary (and therefore unconstitutional) because the states can already do this without the compact. Any state can choose to allocate its EV to the winner of the national popular vote; they don't need a "gang of 270" to do it. The issue here is political viability of doing so. Any one state legislature is afraid of the blowback of overriding the state's result if it doesn't lead to supporting the winner. They want safety in numbers to ensure the result they want, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to subvert the Constitution to achieve that.

And the final argument is that choosing a method that results in non-compacting states giving up their own rights is unconstitutional. In this case, the non-compacting states are forced into the compact when their desire is to continue single-state sovereign uncombined Electoral College tallies.

-PJ

[zencycler]

Thanks for the thoughtful analysis, and of course I’ll settle for any strategy that effectively stops the NPV gang of 270.

Hey, here’s another thought. What if we could get ONE state, say Alaska, to revert back to having the legislature choose their electors without any input from state voters? Then, effectively, there is no longer ANY presidential national popular vote totals for any purpose.

[Political Junkie Too]

I'd love to see something like that.

I know that the howls of protest would be the same regarding repealing the 17th amendment, which is that it's a step back from democracy, that legislation to remove peoples' right to vote is anti-American, and so on.

That said, what if a state appealed to its voters by saying that the Electoral College slate will be determined by the party that holds the most seats in the state legislature's lowest chamber?

So, this means that state voters would have to vote for their assemblymen, and then the party with the majority in the Assembly selects the Electors to the Electoral College.

This leverages the people's representation, assuming that the majority will for their statehouse aligns with the majority will for the White House, but there is no statewide "popular vote" for President.

Would it fly? Who knows? People might say that it doesn't reduce election costs because it takes away only one question on the ballot. On the other hand, it would eliminate endless Presidential campaign commercials on TV if the elections are for local assembly candidates.

Imagine an election in a state where the majority in the Assembly selects the Electors. You would be voting for Joey Bagadonuts for your local district, and if there are ads at all (beyond lawn signs and mailers), what would they say? Joey would say that he supports Trump while Mary Bagelschmear would support Bernie Ocasio Harris. Meanwhile, Joey wants to improve the local high school while Mary wants to raise taxes for the hospital.

How do the national candidate ads play out in this state? Do Trump hold a rally with Joey Bagadonuts? What if there are a dozen Assembly districts in the state? Does he hold one large one, or several regional ones, or does he stay away and just endorse Joey?

Meanwhile, the other states don't get a popular vote for that state.

-PJ

[zencycler]

Nice - and more viable that way.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Doesn’t a change to the electoral college require a constitutional amendment?

One would think.

But, the lawyerly wrinkle here is that the Constitution leaves it to the States to select their electors for the electoral college however they please. So the argument is that this is constitutional.

The Constitution also says that the States shall enter into no compacts with each other, unless with the consent of Congress.

Which, raises two questions. First, this is clearly an interstate compact. In the event of a Democratic Congress, could it be approved? And would it be subject to veto?

And second, is the obvious one that this was never the way electors were intended to be selected, not the way they have ever been selected. That would obviously wind up in the Supreme Court.

As to the outcome of that--who knows anymore?

What is clear is that the last fraud standing would control the election, and that the recounts could go on for YEARS.

[DrymChaser]

Proposed solution. A couple of deep red states only report electors and do not certify a count of votes which, in pretty much all cases (except huge landslides), would cover off the gap between the candidates and render any so-called national popular vote count moot.