• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Unconstitutional?

Is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Unconstitutional

  • Total voters
    36

Anagram

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
9,641
Reaction score
6,525
Location
St. Louis MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
We've had a few threads over the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and whether it's a good idea or not. I don't have a really strong opinion either way on that, but after looking at it in depth a bit, I do have a rather strong opinion that it would be constitutional if enough states enacted it that it goes into effect. So I thought it'd be nice to have a thread narrowed on that issue, and not whether or not it would be a good or bad thing if it was enacted.

The NPVIC is a compact that will go into effect once states with a combined 270 Electoral Votes have passed it. Each state in the compact agreed to select the electors corresponding with the candidate who won the national popular vote, rather than to who won the most votes in their state. Overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

Relevant Constitutional Text:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2


Article II, Section 1, Clause 4

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing [sic] the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
Click to expand...
 
Based on the wording, I don't see how. It refers to the general process by which electors are selected, not how the state ultimately chooses to allocate their votes.
 

I don't really see how it could be unconstitutional. Each state gets to decide how they do it. If there was a law by congress or something mandating it then it would obviously be unconstitutional. But if a number of states that all together contain a majority of the electoral college want to use this method then I don't see any problem with it.
 
I don't believe so, but that doesn't mean it won't be challenged if it ever takes effect.
 
Electoral college could vote for whatever they want, technically. They don't even have to vote based on who won in their state.
 

Interesting question. Each state individually can choose themselves how they want the electors proportioned but if it is actually determined by a "treaty" of a confederation of states, are the individual states the ones actually deciding, or is the confederation imposing it's will on the states of the confederation? I wonder what the result of something like this would have been if it were in place just before the civil war?
 

I think it would be Constitutional since it is left up to the States on how they allocate their electoral votes. But I voted "other" because who knows how SCOTUS would rule on it.
 

You also have the 14th amendment guaranteeing a person the right to vote in election to elect electors.
 
Crovax said:
You also have the 14th amendment guaranteeing a person the right to vote in election to elect electors.
Click to expand...

Good point. I believe that would make it unconsitutional because clearly that would not be happening under certain scenarios, mainly because you could theoretically have an election where one candidate won 100% of the vote and yet the state's electoral votes could go to the other candidate.
 
Crovax said:
You also have the 14th amendment guaranteeing a person the right to vote in election to elect electors.
Click to expand...

Each person would still have a right to vote for the electors. Their state just would no longer make up the entire electorate.
 

No. The states can pick their electors by reading the spots on a cow if that's what the legislatures want.
 
Don't see how it would be unconstitutional.

BTW some of the resistance to it is that it might make a Democratic president easier to elect. Not necessarily. Had we had a popular vote in 2016, the candidates would have had a very different campaigning strategy. No longer could they write off states such as Tennessee, Missouri, or Washington state. No longer would the states of FL, OH, NC, VA, NH, NV, PA, MI, and WI almost entirely determine the entire presidential election.

That's the reason I want the national popular vote: It involves the whole nation, not just a few chunks of it.
 

This is a very interesting video that not only examines the constitutional questions surrounding the popular vote interstate compact. But also quite a bit the history of the electoral college itself.
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/answering-myths

 
Last edited:

It would change the entire game indeed, and I'm not really sure how it would shake things up. I do know a lot of people in deep red and deep blue states don't bother with national elections because they don't feel their vote matters, and they focus on local elections where they feel their vote has an impact. This would get a lot of those folks more active on the national ballot I'm sure.
 
The Framers didn't want a direct popular vote, which is essentially what the new vote proposal seeks to do. This is the liberals attempt at an end run because they were unable to get a constitutional amendment passed. It's unlikely the vote will ever happen because it would need more red states to agree to join, and that probably won't happen. However, if it ever does, expect it to be immediately challenged and put before SCOTUS. Something tells me it might not fare well with SCOTUS.
 

Very interesting but, maybe I missed it, I don't remember them addressing the issue that one could argue that the state was not deciding for itself how the electors would be apportioned if they were part of a confederation of states and they were bound (forced) to apportion electors based on the will of the confederacy and not by the individual state in question. What if Republican states banded together and decided to do the very same thing, only instead of going by the national popular vote, these states decided that only the one percenters could vote for the electors?
 
Last edited:

What tells you that, constitutionally speaking?
 

I could get behind that. I would prefer the popular national vote to determine the victor. I can't think of any other nations that use our arcane EC system.
 

I think in that case you’d run into some voter discrimination issues like Section 2 of the Fourteenth. Under the NPVIC, you’re treating all the voters in your state the same and would avoid that.

I don’t think the compact would be a problem either. It’s not really giving another entity the power, it’s the people exercising their power to select their electors according to the standard of who got the most votes nationally.
 

I may be missing something but how about just going with the popular vote in the first place? I can't see how the Interstate Compact is really different. I oppose going to the popular vote vs the electoral college, but we've already had that discussion.

To me it would be more honest to divvy up the electoral college votes according to the popular vote in each state. In other words New Mexico has five electoral votes. If 100,000 vote for the Republican and 150,000 for the Democrat, the Republican would get 2 electoral votes and the Democrat would get 3.

In the 2016 election, if the electoral votes were divided up proportionately to the popular vote in California, Hillary would have received 36 electoral votes as opposed to the 55 in the winner take all system. Trump would receive 18. Stein would have received 1.

But then again consider Florida in which the vote was much closer. Trump was the winner take all of the 29 electoral college votes there while the popular vote was very close - like 2 percentage points apart. Yet Trump carried 59 of 67 Florida counties. Hillary carried 8. She just happened to carry the counties with the huge Hispanic and other minority group populations and even there Trump didn't lose by more than 33%.

There are simply no easy answers to find that sweet spot of equity between a tyranny of the majority and a tyranny of the minority.
 

There is no "confederacy" here. That went out with the Civil War. Remember? This is political advocacy group for the popular vote and there's nothing unconstitutional or unethical about it. It's how change often comes. Your Republican example however would certainly run into some problems though.
 

A system worthy of discussion for sure. But I'm trying to keep this thread less about the pros and cons of any system though and more about the constitutionality.
 

Ummmmmmmmmmm. There are 10 states currently in the confederacy and they are looking for enough states to join the confederacy to give them 270 electoral votes. How about a confederacy where only one percenters are allowed to vote for the electors? How do you feel about that? Republicans control 2/3's of the governorships and state legislatures. We could take those 33 states and form a confederacy where only those one percenters vote for the electors. Isn't that the way the country voted in the first place?
 
It seems pretty cut and dried to me. It's clearly constitutional since the constitution grants each state the power to choose electors in whatever manner it wishes.
 

LOL! Tell them to go ahead and try then and see what happens. And once again it's a political compact advocating for the popular vote that uses wholly legal and Constitution means to advance it's position in hopes that the popular vote will one day replace the electoral college. Did you watch the video at all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…