These states have joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to replace the Electoral College

[Questerr]

"Article II and the Twelfth Amendment provide presidential electors the right to cast a vote for President and Vice President with discretion. And the state does not possess countervailing authority to remove an elector and to cancel his vote in response to the exercise of that Constitutional right. "

Awarding all of a given state's electoral college votes to the national popular vote winner, despite the majority of votes in that state would in effect be removing individual electors and cancelling their votes. When challenged, that will not likely prevail in state supreme courts much less federal. And it would destroy the concept of preventing a few large states from calling the shots for every state. If you want to change the system, you must go through the constitutional amendment process, rather then just passing laws in given states based on partisan emotional butthurt feelings over not having the support of heartland America.

You realize that is referring to trying to change their vote AFTER they have cast it, yes? It doesn't apply.

 

[MAGAnificent]

You realize that is referring to trying to change their vote AFTER they have cast it, yes? It doesn't apply.

If you change their vote by way of a new law claiming all votes go to the candidate with the most national popular votes, then you are in effect canceling all of the electors no matter how they vote. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

 

[Questerr]

If you change their vote by way of a new law claiming all votes go to the candidate with the most national popular votes, then you are in effect canceling all of the electors no matter how they vote. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

...Do you think electors are a permanent position?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

It should not need explaining. The founders intended a system where each state would pick it's electors based on the votes in that individual state, where a handful of very populated states would call the shots for the entire nation. Read the statute I posted.

"Article II and the Twelfth Amendment provide presidential electors the right to cast a vote for President and Vice President with discretion. And the state does not possess countervailing authority to remove an elector and to cancel his vote in response to the exercise of that Constitutional right. "

Awarding all of a given state's electoral college votes to the national popular vote winner, despite the majority of votes in that state would in effect be removing individual electors and cancelling their votes. When challenged, that will not likely prevail in state supreme courts much less federal. And it would destroy the concept of preventing a few large states from calling the shots for every state. If you want to change the system, you must go through the constitutional amendment process, rather then just passing laws in given states based on partisan emotional butthurt feelings over not having the support of heartland America.

Unfamiliar with SCOTUS’ ruling regarding so-called “faithless electors”?

Short version; the high court ruled (9-0) that states have the right to penalize and/or remove electors that attempt to vote in a manner not agreed to at the time the potential elector accepts the appointment.

States can punish 'faithless' electors, Supreme Court rules

The decision was unanimous.

www.politico.com

States authority rules, under the 10th amendment, to select and present electors.

While there are reasonable arguments on both sides of the argument, I believe a federal challenge to the interstate compact, if it gets that far, would not be a “slam dunk” for either side.

Balletopia presents both sides of the argument well, IMO.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

 

[MAGAnificent]

...Do you think electors are a permanent position?

Depends on what you mean by permanent. Electoral College electors are voted into those positions by the state's voters. Their responsibility is to vote in the electoral college based on the popular vote results in their given state. If you cancel them, you are in effect cancelling every individual vote in that state. You are in effect, telling the voters to **** off and that their vote does not matter.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Unfamiliar with SCOTUS’ ruling regarding so-called “faithless electors”?

Short version; the high court ruled (9-0) that states have the right to penalize and/or remove electors that attempt to vote in a manner not agreed to at the time the potential elector accepts the appointment.

States can punish 'faithless' electors, Supreme Court rules

The decision was unanimous.

www.politico.com

States authority rules, under the 10th amendment, to select and present electors.

While there are reasonable arguments on both sides of the argument, I believe a federal challenge to the interstate compact, if it gets that far, would not be a “slam dunk” for either side.

Balletopia presents both sides of the argument well, IMO.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

Point is that you cannot cancel out those electors and they are expected to vote based on the popular votes in their state. Think about it. Why would anyone in an individual state bother to vote for president if their vote did not matter?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Interactions with Russian nationals? That happens all the time in Washington DC and New York especially. Often it's casual contact in a cafeteria line.

Flippant dismissive dismissed.

It was a Russian National that commonly ran in democrat party circles that helped the democrats set up that intended trap at Trump Towers.

You think jr was really naïve to the fact that meeting a Russian national, purportedly affiliated with the Russian government, to receive dirt on his daddy’s opponent wasn’t illegal?

C’mon.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Point is that you cannot cancel out those electors and they are expected to vote based on the popular votes in their state. Think about it. Why would anyone in an individual state bother to vote for president if their vote did not matter?

Again, how electors are apportioned is a state’s right.

Don’t mistake my argument as support for the Interstate Compact. I don’t want to see either party gain an unfair advantage.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Flippant dismissive dismissed.

What you claim to dismiss simply does not matter in any way what so ever.

You think jr was really naïve to the fact that meeting a Russian national, purportedly affiliated with the Russian government, to receive dirt on his daddy’s opponent wasn’t illegal?

C’mon.

The casual meeting at Trump Towers that you are basing that one involved no dirt being offered when the meeting took place. It was merely an attempted trap by the Hillary camp. If you think just the motive of meeting the Russians hoping to receive dirt is a crime, then everyone in the Hillary camp should have been indicted over the Steele Dossier. That was the Hillary camp paying millions of dollars for a dossier they knew was offered by the Russians. Hillary Clinton pushed it off as "opposition research. No if the Trump campaign were colluding with the Russians to mess with vote counts or voting machines, you would have a point. The Mueller Investigation concluded no evidence of that.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Again, how electors are apportioned is a state’s right.

Don’t mistake my argument as support for the Interstate Compact. I don’t want to see either party gain an unfair advantage.

Either way, the so-called Interstate Compact in effect just wipes out the electors altogether. It would be the law dreamed up in that compact deciding that states votes, not the electors or that states voters. Even if you are suggesting that the compact can force the electors to vote for whichever candidate gets the majority of national popular votes, you are still canceling out the electors as well as the voters. That violates the statute I posted and would simply not prevail if tested in the courts.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

This 2020 county by county map is why the libruls hate the electoral college:

View attachment 67379329

Liberals hate the electoral college because it robbed them twice in the last six elections.

The map only matters to Republicans. Counties aren't even relevant to drawing House boundaries, and in 48 states even the House boundaries are irrelevant to the Presidency.

Biden won 25 states plus DC, in 2020. States matter. Counties don't.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Either way, the so-called Interstate Compact in effect just wipes out the electors altogether. It would be the law dreamed up in that compact deciding that states votes, not the electors or that states voters. Even if you are suggesting that the compact can force the electors to vote for whichever candidate gets the majority of national popular votes, you are still canceling out the electors as well as the voters. That violates the statute I posted and would simply not prevail if tested in the courts.

How eager you are to toss out powers reserved to the States, when they don't suit you.

And ... what statute did you post?

 

[MAGAnificent]

Liberals hate the electoral college because it robbed them twice in the last six elections.

No it did not rob them at all. They lost fair and square. The candidate with the most electoral college votes wins. No robbery involved.

The map only matters to Republicans. Counties aren't even relevant to drawing House boundaries, and in 48 states even the House boundaries are irrelevant to the Presidency.

However the map does show that area wise, most of the country is conservative.

Biden won 25 states plus DC, in 2020. States matter. Counties don't.

My purpose for posting the map was to show why libruls hate the electoral college. They hate it because so much of the nation is red rather then blue.

 

[MAGAnificent]

How eager you are to toss out powers reserved to the States, when they don't suit you.

And ... what statute did you post?

You have it completely backwards. A compact forcing given states to award all of their electoral votes to whoever gets the majority of national popular votes is the state giving up a power reserved to the states. The so-called compact is dreamed up by politicians in those states, not the voters or the electors. Check post #1267.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

No it did not rob them at all. They lost fair and square. The candidate with the most electoral college votes wins. No robbery involved.

However the map does show that area wise, most of the country is conservative.

Which as I said, only matters to conservatives. Rural population is steadily declining, so maybe it doesn't even matter to them.

My purpose for posting the map was to show why libruls hate the electoral college. They hate it because so much of the nation is red rather then blue.

No, they hate the electoral college so much because using the popular vote instead, Democrats would have won 5 instead of 3 recent elections. Possibly 2004 as well.

Liberals don't hate the map. That would make no sense.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

You have it completely backwards. A compact forcing given states to award all of their electoral votes to whoever gets the majority of national popular votes is the state giving up a power reserved to the states.

No, it's a law they each pass. If passing a law is giving up anything, then you have a problem with ALL state laws.

The so-called compact is dreamed up by politicians in those states, not the voters or the electors.

Let's repeal all laws then. Would that make your little heart happy?

Check post #1267.

#1267 doesn't have a link in it. It has an unattributed quote which the Supreme Court murdered 9 0

 

[MAGAnificent]

No, they hate the electoral so much because using the popular vote instead, Democrats would have won 5 instead of 3 recent elections.

So what you are saying is that the democrats just hate the electoral college because it does not always agree with the national popular vote. If we were one big state instead of 50 united states, you would have a valid point. You will have to live with the system the founders designed or go through the constitutional amendment process to try to change it.

 

[MAGAnificent]

No, it's a law they each pass. If passing a law is giving up anything, then you have a problem with ALL state laws.

A law passed that cancels out electors in given states is unconstitutional. Laws passed in states if tested must pass constitutional muster.

Let's repeal all laws then. Would that make your little heart happy?

Now you are gettingemotional.

#1267 doesn't have a link in it. It has an unattributed quote which the Supreme Court murdered 9 0

You are a big boy now. I am sure you can look it up.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

So what you are saying is that the democrats just hate the electoral college because it does not always agree with the national popular vote.

Congratulations, yes. Senators and Representatives are elected by the popular vote (in their state or district) so why isn't it good enough for the Presidency?

If we were one big state instead of 50 united states, you would have a valid point. You will have to live with the system the founders designed or go through the constitutional amendment process to try to change it.

Or pass the Compact and see what real Justices make of it.

Perhaps you should hang your hat on it requiring consent of Congress, instead of it being outright unconstitutional. Avoid disappointment at least for a few more years!

 

[The Stars Tremble]

A law passed that cancels out electors in given states is unconstitutional.

You're just repeating yourself. You've got nothing else.

Laws passed in states if tested must pass constitutional muster.

Now you are gettingemotional.

You are a big boy now. I am sure you can look it up.

I don't need to look it up. I saw right here in this thread, @RaleBulgarian murdered it right before my eyes.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

What you claim to dismiss simply does not matter in any way what so ever.

The casual meeting at Trump Towers that you are basing that one involved no dirt being offered when the meeting took place. It was merely an attempted trap by the Hillary camp. If you think just the motive of meeting the Russians hoping to receive dirt is a crime, then everyone in the Hillary camp should have been indicted over the Steele Dossier. That was the Hillary camp paying millions of dollars for a dossier they knew was offered by the Russians. Hillary Clinton pushed it off as "opposition research. No if the Trump campaign were colluding with the Russians to mess with vote counts or voting machines, you would have a point. The Mueller Investigation concluded no evidence of that.

Your partisan attempted spin doesn’t change the fact that jr believed that he was meeting a Russian national with Kremlin ties, for the purpose of gaining negative information on his father’s political opponent. A clear violation of federal law. The only reason he wasn’t charged was because Mueller couldn’t prove that jr knew that he was breaking the law.

Clearly, you’re incapable of participating in a honest conversation, so I’ll leave you here.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

"On July 6, 2020, the Supreme Court unanimously held that states may punish or replace presidential electors who refuse to cast their ballots for the candidate chosen by the voters of their state"

The parade of Right-Wing sites who were so sure of the 10th circuit decision (against punishing faithless electors) have not updated, let alone retracted their crowing about how it means the end of the NPVIC. They only take an interest in what courts say, when it goes their way.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Either way, the so-called Interstate Compact in effect just wipes out the electors altogether. It would be the law dreamed up in that compact deciding that states votes, not the electors or that states voters. Even if you are suggesting that the compact can force the electors to vote for whichever candidate gets the majority of national popular votes, you are still canceling out the electors as well as the voters. That violates the statute I posted and would simply not prevail if tested in the courts.

Your wishful interpretations of the Constitution are irrelevant. Factually, there are valid arguments on both sides.

 

[justoneman]

Map: These are the states that have agreed to a plan to replace the Electoral College

Colorado became the latest state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, now one of 15 states and D.C.

www.nbcnews.com

Well people in those states would have cause to sue over such an unconstitutional state law.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Your wishful interpretations of the Constitution are irrelevant. Factually, there are valid arguments on both sides.

What's your opinion on it needing consent of Congress?

Each state's law only comes into effect depending on laws in other states. Surely that makes it effectively a compact, whatever it is called?