Does anyone here actually know HOW the popular vote compact(s) would work?

[Antiwar]

As in, what's the crucial mechanism? Would some PVC states actually change their (intrastate) popular vote? In other words, would some PVC states that voted Republican change their vote to Democratic?

The PVC information that I've looked at seems to be hiding what the true mechanism would be. Republicans say that (some) PVC states would change their R electoral votes to D; I don't buy that, but I haven't figured out how the unequal voting-power of the EC would be overcome.


Here's what a Wikipedia page says about the mechanism. It doesn't say what the actual mechanism is:

"Mechanism​

Taking the form of an interstate compact, the agreement would go into effect among participating states only after they collectively represent an absolute majority of votes (currently at least 270) in the Electoral College. Once in effect, in each presidential election the participating states would award all of their electoral votes to the candidate with the largest national popular vote total across the 50 states and the District of Columbia. As a result, that candidate would win the presidency by securing a majority of votes in the Electoral College. Until the compact's conditions are met, all states award electoral votes in their current manner."


Question: HOW would "the participating states award all of their electoral votes to the candidate with the largest national popular vote total across the 50 states and the District of Columbia"?



Would the PVC mechanism work without changing some state's electoral votes from R to D? By having enough electoral votes (270) in the PVC, is the mechanism just that the electoral college math is nullified?

 

[mrjurrs]

As in, what's the crucial mechanism? Would some PVC states actually change their (intrastate) popular vote? In other words, would some PVC states that voted Republican change their vote to Democratic?

The PVC information that I've looked at seems to be hiding what the true mechanism would be. Republicans say that (some) PVC states would change their R electoral votes to D; I don't buy that, but I haven't figured out how the unequal voting-power of the EC would be overcome.


Here's what a Wikipedia page says about the mechanism. It doesn't say what the actual mechanism is:

"Mechanism​

Taking the form of an interstate compact, the agreement would go into effect among participating states only after they collectively represent an absolute majority of votes (currently at least 270) in the Electoral College. Once in effect, in each presidential election the participating states would award all of their electoral votes to the candidate with the largest national popular vote total across the 50 states and the District of Columbia. As a result, that candidate would win the presidency by securing a majority of votes in the Electoral College. Until the compact's conditions are met, all states award electoral votes in their current manner."


Question: HOW would the participating states award all of their electoral votes to the candidate with the largest national popular vote total across the 50 states and the District of Columbia?



Would the PVC mechanism work without changing some state's electoral votes from R to D? By having enough electoral votes (270) in the PVC, is the mechanism just that the electoral college math is nullified?

Once the compact reaches electoral majority, the participating states would award their slate of electors to the candidate that wins the national popular vote. The combination of states would guarantee that the national popular vote winner would also be the Electoral College winners.

"...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..."
USC Article 2 Section 1

 

[Antiwar]

Once the compact reaches electoral majority, the participating states would award their slate of electors to the candidate that wins the national popular vote. The combination of states would guarantee that the national popular vote winner would also be the Electoral College winners.

"...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..."
USC Article 2 Section 1

Would any states have to change their electoral votes from R to D or D to R?

 

[Mycroft]

As in, what's the crucial mechanism? Would some PVC states actually change their (intrastate) popular vote? In other words, would some PVC states that voted Republican change their vote to Democratic?

The PVC information that I've looked at seems to be hiding what the true mechanism would be. Republicans say that (some) PVC states would change their R electoral votes to D; I don't buy that, but I haven't figured out how the unequal voting-power of the EC would be overcome.


Here's what a Wikipedia page says about the mechanism. It doesn't say what the actual mechanism is:

"Mechanism​

Taking the form of an interstate compact, the agreement would go into effect among participating states only after they collectively represent an absolute majority of votes (currently at least 270) in the Electoral College. Once in effect, in each presidential election the participating states would award all of their electoral votes to the candidate with the largest national popular vote total across the 50 states and the District of Columbia. As a result, that candidate would win the presidency by securing a majority of votes in the Electoral College. Until the compact's conditions are met, all states award electoral votes in their current manner."


Question: HOW would "the participating states award all of their electoral votes to the candidate with the largest national popular vote total across the 50 states and the District of Columbia"?



Would the PVC mechanism work without changing some state's electoral votes from R to D? By having enough electoral votes (270) in the PVC, is the mechanism just that the electoral college math is nullified?

Colorado voters approved this thing after it was placed on the ballot by the Colorado Senate. Here is a link to colorado.gov about it, including the text of the bill. That text describes the process that we would have used.

National Popular Vote | Colorado General Assembly

www.leg.colorado.gov

 

[mrjurrs]

Would any states have to change their electoral votes from R to D or D to R?

No, because the legislature would be 'casting' them for the first time. Would a state where voters voted majority D cast their EC votes for a R if the R was the national popular vote total winner? Yes, because the state legislature determined that they would cast their ballots based on a national popular vote total, not the state total. See US Constitution Article 2 section 1

 

[Antiwar]

No, because the legislature would be 'casting' them for the first time. Would a state where voters voted majority D cast their EC votes for a R if the R was the national popular vote total winner? Yes, because the state legislature determined that they would cast their ballots based on a national popular vote total, not the state total.

How sure are you on that? I'm probably going to have to go through the 2016 election and see what happens with PVC states.

See US Constitution Article 2 section 1

Why? Does it answer the question?

 

[NWRatCon]

The fundamental mechanism is that each State assigns its Electoral Vote by State law - The U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1) gives the states exclusive control over awarding their electoral votes: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors....” - (which is why it is constitutional). If that State law assigns them in accordance with the National Popular Vote count, they don't "change" their EC vote. Essentially what they are doing is pooling Compact State votes, rather than having them all divided up along State lines. In essence, it is no different than the distortion that occurs with the "Winner takes all" methodology that most States currently employ.

The actual mechanism is laid out in the Compact:

Prior to the time set by law for the meeting and voting by the presidential electors, the chief election official of each member state shall determine the number of votes for each presidential slate in each State of the United States and in the District of Columbia in which votes have been cast in a statewide popular election and shall add such votes together to produce a “national popular vote total” for each presidential slate.

The chief election official of each member state shall designate the presidential slate with the largest national popular vote total as the “national popular vote winner.”

The presidential elector certifying official of each member state shall certify the appointment in that official’s own state of the elector slate nominated in that state in association with the national popular vote winner.

 

[natsb]

No, because the legislature would be 'casting' them for the first time. Would a state where voters voted majority D cast their EC votes for a R if the R was the national popular vote total winner? Yes, because the state legislature determined that they would cast their ballots based on a national popular vote total, not the state total. See US Constitution Article 2 section 1

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 is still in the way. A Congressional approval is required.

 

[mrjurrs]

How sure are you on that? I'm probably going to have to go through the 2016 election and see what happens with PVC states.



Why? Does it answer the question?

There is a model of the compact, and you could look at the bills passed in the states that already have passed them.

The Constitution reference says that the States have the ability to determine what their process is for choosing Electors.

 

[mrjurrs]

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 is still in the way. A Congressional approval is required.

That's a liberal construction view of the clause (and for those of you that think I'm referring to the left need to go back to civics class), and it could be held in that fashion. However, there is no precedent to use the clause as you suggest. Did Congress approve of the multi state concealed carry permit legislation from FL?

 

[Noodlegawd]

As in, what's the crucial mechanism? Would some PVC states actually change their (intrastate) popular vote? In other words, would some PVC states that voted Republican change their vote to Democratic?

The PVC information that I've looked at seems to be hiding what the true mechanism would be. Republicans say that (some) PVC states would change their R electoral votes to D; I don't buy that, but I haven't figured out how the unequal voting-power of the EC would be overcome.


Here's what a Wikipedia page says about the mechanism. It doesn't say what the actual mechanism is:

"Mechanism​

Taking the form of an interstate compact, the agreement would go into effect among participating states only after they collectively represent an absolute majority of votes (currently at least 270) in the Electoral College. Once in effect, in each presidential election the participating states would award all of their electoral votes to the candidate with the largest national popular vote total across the 50 states and the District of Columbia. As a result, that candidate would win the presidency by securing a majority of votes in the Electoral College. Until the compact's conditions are met, all states award electoral votes in their current manner."


Question: HOW would "the participating states award all of their electoral votes to the candidate with the largest national popular vote total across the 50 states and the District of Columbia"?



Would the PVC mechanism work without changing some state's electoral votes from R to D? By having enough electoral votes (270) in the PVC, is the mechanism just that the electoral college math is nullified?

Every state has a law or laws dictating how they will conduct elections and chose electors.

Most do it by awarding all the electors to whichever candidate wins the most votes in their state.

So they would just have to pass a law indicating that they will instead award all their electoral votes to whomever wins the national popular vote, on the condition that enough states also pass laws requiring the same.

 

[Integrityrespec]

As in, what's the crucial mechanism? Would some PVC states actually change their (intrastate) popular vote? In other words, would some PVC states that voted Republican change their vote to Democratic?

The PVC information that I've looked at seems to be hiding what the true mechanism would be. Republicans say that (some) PVC states would change their R electoral votes to D; I don't buy that, but I haven't figured out how the unequal voting-power of the EC would be overcome.


Here's what a Wikipedia page says about the mechanism. It doesn't say what the actual mechanism is:

"Mechanism​

Taking the form of an interstate compact, the agreement would go into effect among participating states only after they collectively represent an absolute majority of votes (currently at least 270) in the Electoral College. Once in effect, in each presidential election the participating states would award all of their electoral votes to the candidate with the largest national popular vote total across the 50 states and the District of Columbia. As a result, that candidate would win the presidency by securing a majority of votes in the Electoral College. Until the compact's conditions are met, all states award electoral votes in their current manner."


Question: HOW would "the participating states award all of their electoral votes to the candidate with the largest national popular vote total across the 50 states and the District of Columbia"?



Would the PVC mechanism work without changing some state's electoral votes from R to D? By having enough electoral votes (270) in the PVC, is the mechanism just that the electoral college math is nullified?

Basically the state legislature can appoint a set of electors that do not adhere to the vote tally. They then can cast there votes for whoever they wish based on popular vote. The catch is, those states would loose a an equal proportion of their parties members of the House of Representatives in the US Congress. So lets say they are dems who over ride the vote in their state to go along with the popular vote nationwide, they wojld then sacrifice an equal number of their representatives to the other party. So if they overthrow a 10% percent of votes, they give up 10% of their reps in the US House to the reps.
That's my best memory. I have the document saved if I can find it.

 

[Noodlegawd]

The catch is, those states would loose a an equal proportion of their parties members of the House of Representatives in the US Congress. So lets say they are dems who over ride the vote in their state to go along with the popular vote nationwide, they wojld then sacrifice an equal number of their representatives to the other party.

Huh?

 

[Integrityrespec]

Found this explanation. Not the one I was seaching for but some information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natio... Vote Interstate,and the District of Columbia.

 

[maquiscat]

As in, what's the crucial mechanism? Would some PVC states actually change their (intrastate) popular vote? In other words, would some PVC states that voted Republican change their vote to Democratic?

The PVC information that I've looked at seems to be hiding what the true mechanism would be. Republicans say that (some) PVC states would change their R electoral votes to D; I don't buy that, but I haven't figured out how the unequal voting-power of the EC would be overcome.


Here's what a Wikipedia page says about the mechanism. It doesn't say what the actual mechanism is:

"Mechanism​

Taking the form of an interstate compact, the agreement would go into effect among participating states only after they collectively represent an absolute majority of votes (currently at least 270) in the Electoral College. Once in effect, in each presidential election the participating states would award all of their electoral votes to the candidate with the largest national popular vote total across the 50 states and the District of Columbia. As a result, that candidate would win the presidency by securing a majority of votes in the Electoral College. Until the compact's conditions are met, all states award electoral votes in their current manner."


Question: HOW would "the participating states award all of their electoral votes to the candidate with the largest national popular vote total across the 50 states and the District of Columbia"?



Would the PVC mechanism work without changing some state's electoral votes from R to D? By having enough electoral votes (270) in the PVC, is the mechanism just that the electoral college math is nullified?

As others have noted, you are running off a false premise is asking about if the vote would change from one party to another. However, the question that is probably running in your head is essentially correct. A state under this compact could end up voting 100% for the Republican candidate, but if the national popular vote vent to the Democrat, that the state would give all its EC votes to the Democrat. It would be the ultimate in voter disenfranchisement. I guarantee that the first time something along this line happens, the compact will break down.

 

[Visbek]

As in, what's the crucial mechanism?

What happens is that the state declares, and agrees in advance, to assign all of its Electoral College votes to whatever candidate wins the national popular vote.

Would some PVC states actually change their (intrastate) popular vote?

No. They only see their own state's voters as contributing to the national popular vote.

In other words, would some PVC states that voted Republican change their vote to Democratic?

Yes, or vice versa.

Question: HOW would "the participating states award all of their electoral votes to the candidate with the largest national popular vote total across the 50 states and the District of Columbia"?

The Constitution explicitly allows the legislature of the states to decide how to select its electors.

A state isn't even required to hold an election. The legislators can just arbitrarily decide whom they're going to select.

Keep in mind that they can't change the slate of electors after already committing to hold an election. If the state laws say "our electors are selected as a result of the popular vote within the state," and the legislators don't like the results, they are stuck with it. (That's why they couldn't switch their electors to Trump after the November elections.)

In terms of the PVC, that basically means the state legislator needs to commit to the PVC well in advance, so the citizens of that state understand how it works.

Would the PVC mechanism work without changing some state's electoral votes from R to D?

Uh... No, that would not work.

By having enough electoral votes (270) in the PVC, is the mechanism just that the electoral college math is nullified?

Yes. The idea is to do an end-run around the EC, and force candidates to focus on the national popular vote.

 

[Antiwar]

The idea is to do an end-run around the EC, and force candidates to focus on the national popular vote.

Sorry, no, the main idea is to not have the unpopular vote elect presidents.

 

[natsb]

That's a liberal construction view of the clause (and for those of you that think I'm referring to the left need to go back to civics class), and it could be held in that fashion. However, there is no precedent to use the clause as you suggest. Did Congress approve of the multi state concealed carry permit legislation from FL?

There is a significant difference between reciprocity agreements and a Compact. Virginia v. Tennessee established that minor agreements, such as recognizing marriage and drivers licenses from other States, does not require Congressional approval. Electing a President is not minor. Texas v. New Mexico establishes that congressional approval of a compact is needed when the agreement might affect injuriously the interests of other states or when the compact would infringe on the rights of the national government.

So, yes, there is precedent.

 

[mrjurrs]

There is a significant difference between reciprocity agreements and a Compact. Virginia v. Tennessee established that minor agreements, such as recognizing marriage and drivers licenses from other States, does not require Congressional approval. Electing a President is not minor. Texas v. New Mexico establishes that congressional approval of a compact is needed when the agreement might affect injuriously the interests of other states or when the compact would infringe on the rights of the national government.

So, yes, there is precedent.

There is precedent for sharing water. The power of the state to select Electors in the manner they decide is expressly granted by the Constitution.

 

[Visbek]

Sorry, no, the main idea is to not have the unpopular vote elect presidents.

Sorry but yes, the explicit goal of the Popular Vote Compact is to use the Electoral College to elect the President, based on the national popular vote, without amending the Constitution.

I mean... It's right in the name. How did you miss that part?

 

[natsb]

There is precedent for sharing water. The power of the state to select Electors in the manner they decide is expressly granted by the Constitution.

And... The ability for States to enter Compacts with each other without Congressional approval is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. PVC, by definition, is a Compact. It is my opinion that the Constitution must be accepted or rejected in its entirety. One is not free to cherry pick only the parts that supports their argument.

I am certain that if the PVC comes to fruition, a non participating State will take it to Court. Of course SCOTUS is free to do as they wish, but if they follow established precedent, PVC will be ruled invalid without a Congressional vote. If Congress consents, then it is a done deal.

 

[mrjurrs]

And... The ability for States to enter Compacts with each other without Congressional approval is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. PVC, by definition, is a Compact. It is my opinion that the Constitution must be accepted or rejected in its entirety. One is not free to cherry pick only the parts that supports their argument.

I am certain that if the PVC comes to fruition, a non participating State will take it to Court. Of course SCOTUS is free to do as they wish, but if they follow established precedent, PVC will be ruled invalid without a Congressional vote. If Congress consents, then it is a done deal.

" It is my opinion that the Constitution must be accepted or rejected in its entirety."

Why did they include Article 5?

Not that SCOTUS requires standing anymore, but how would a state be injured by other states methods of selecting electors. Seems that TX got slapped down trying to sue on that basis this past election.

 

[Deuce]

Question: HOW would "the participating states award all of their electoral votes to the candidate with the largest national popular vote total across the 50 states and the District of Columbia"?

By... doing that.

Would the PVC mechanism work without changing some state's electoral votes from R to D? By having enough electoral votes (270) in the PVC, is the mechanism just that the electoral college math is nullified?

They wouldn't change electoral votes from R to D, no. They just award the electoral votes in the first place to the winner of the popular vote.

Or D to R, by the way. Blue states in this compact could have their votes go to a Republican.

 

[Deuce]

There is a significant difference between reciprocity agreements and a Compact. Virginia v. Tennessee established that minor agreements, such as recognizing marriage and drivers licenses from other States, does not require Congressional approval. Electing a President is not minor. Texas v. New Mexico establishes that congressional approval of a compact is needed when the agreement might affect injuriously the interests of other states or when the compact would infringe on the rights of the national government.

So, yes, there is precedent.

There's no precedent that one state is injured via electoral votes cast by another. In fact, we have precedent from 2020 that one state has no standing to sue another based on alleged election fraud. Texas has no right to challenge Alabama's election process or its outcome. States are explicitly given the right to allocate electoral votes, it's why the GOP is changing laws to let them just tell their own people to piss off and send the votes to the R candidate no matter what.

"Which guy wins" is explicitly not an individual state's interest. Otherwise you'd be claiming that Texas is legally injured by the election of Joe Biden.

And "which guy wins" is absolutely not an interest of the Federal government.

 

[Antiwar]

Sorry but yes, the explicit goal of the Popular Vote Compact is to use the Electoral College to elect the President, based on the national popular vote, without amending the Constitution.

I mean... It's right in the name. How did you miss that part?

Miscommunication: I was referring to the second part of your sentence that I quoted.