The electoral college

[Ernie]

This will be interesting.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyell ... b684d4711a

[Bootstrap]

This will be interesting.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyell ... b684d4711a

About as interesting as picking the electors on Monday. It will make some headlines. It will fizzle. The Republican Senate will not choose these alternates. The courts will not invalidate the election. The State Boards will not change their minds. Biden will become president on schedule.

[barnhart]

Yesterday I heard a report on NPR on a renewed interest in state legislatures to tie their EC electors to the national popular vote. 15 states are on board so far. If a majority take this up, the electoral college will in effect be bound to the popular vote without a constitutional amendment.

[JimFoxvog]

Yesterday I heard a report on NPR on a renewed interest in state legislatures to tie their EC electors to the national popular vote. 15 states are on board so far. If a majority take this up, the electoral college will in effect be bound to the popular vote without a constitutional amendment.

I like the idea, but wouldn't it be declared unconstitutional?

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
-- Article One, Section Ten

[Ken]

Yesterday I heard a report on NPR on a renewed interest in state legislatures to tie their EC electors to the national popular vote. 15 states are on board so far. If a majority take this up, the electoral college will in effect be bound to the popular vote without a constitutional amendment.

I like the idea, but wouldn't it be declared unconstitutional?

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
-- Article One, Section Ten

I suspect this national popular vote compact would fail the test of someone like Donald Trump who would just exert intense pressure on GOP state legislatures to last-minute opt out of the compact and flip their electoral votes back to him if he actually won the state.

In theory it might work. In practice, in the intense high-stakes legal battles that we see post-election when we have a candidate like Trump, I don't see it standing up. Imagine the brutally intense pressure on the GOP legislators of a state like Georgia if Trump had won Georgia but the popular vote compact had allocated those electors to Biden because he won the popular vote. And they actually had the opportunity after the fact to opt back out of the compact.

[barnhart]

Yesterday I heard a report on NPR on a renewed interest in state legislatures to tie their EC electors to the national popular vote. 15 states are on board so far. If a majority take this up, the electoral college will in effect be bound to the popular vote without a constitutional amendment.

I like the idea, but wouldn't it be declared unconstitutional?

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
-- Article One, Section Ten

I suspect this national popular vote compact would fail the test of someone like Donald Trump who would just exert intense pressure on GOP state legislatures to last-minute opt out of the compact and flip their electoral votes back to him if he actually won the state.

In theory it might work. In practice, in the intense high-stakes legal battles that we see post-election when we have a candidate like Trump, I don't see it standing up. Imagine the brutally intense pressure on the GOP legislators of a state like Georgia if Trump had won Georgia but the popular vote compact had allocated those electors to Biden because he won the popular vote. And they actually had the opportunity after the fact to opt back out of the compact.

Democracy is always a gentlemen's agreement to compromise. When the gentlemen and the inclination to compromise are gone it simply evaporates.

[ohio jones]

Yesterday I heard a report on NPR on a renewed interest in state legislatures to tie their EC electors to the national popular vote. 15 states are on board so far. If a majority take this up, the electoral college will in effect be bound to the popular vote without a constitutional amendment.

I like the idea, but wouldn't it be declared unconstitutional?

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
-- Article One, Section Ten

The NPVIC wouldn't take effect until states representing 270+ electoral votes adopt it. Presumably the congressional delegations from those states would be on board and would Consent to it, so the constitutionality is not likely to be an obstacle.

I'm a bit surprised that smaller states like VT and DE have signed on, since it dilutes their power. They might regret their decision if a Republican wins the popular vote but not (under the current system) the electoral vote.

[Ernie]

Democracy is always a gentlemen's agreement to compromise. When the gentlemen and the inclination to compromise are gone it simply evaporates.

This needs to go in the "gem" thread, wherever that is...

[Ken]

Yesterday I heard a report on NPR on a renewed interest in state legislatures to tie their EC electors to the national popular vote. 15 states are on board so far. If a majority take this up, the electoral college will in effect be bound to the popular vote without a constitutional amendment.

I like the idea, but wouldn't it be declared unconstitutional?

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
-- Article One, Section Ten

The NPVIC wouldn't take effect until states representing 270+ electoral votes adopt it. Presumably the congressional delegations from those states would be on board and would Consent to it, so the constitutionality is not likely to be an obstacle.

I'm a bit surprised that smaller states like VT and DE have signed on, since it dilutes their power. They might regret their decision if a Republican wins the popular vote but not (under the current system) the electoral vote.

The problem is that no legislature is bound by the laws and acts of its predecessors. So, for example, if a Democratic legislature in North Carolina signs on in the year 2010, that doesn't in any way bind a subsequent Republican legislature from abandoning the compact in 2024 or 2028 if doing so would benefit the GOP. In fact, one can almost certainly predict that will happen.

Another way of putting it is that the only real way to ensure that the compact stays in place is if it isn't actually needed. The minute a state legislature can swing the national election towards the candidate and party that they favor by abandoning the compact, they will do so. Count on it. They will come up with some fig leaf excuse about respecting the will of their voters or something like that. And nothing will be able to stop them from actually allocating electors to the candidate who won their state rather than the one who won the popular vote because that's how it's always been done for 250 years anyway.

[Judas Maccabeus]

This will be interesting.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyell ... b684d4711a

But quite useless. If Mitch McConnell can do anything he can count, and he knows that any challenge is sure to lose in the house, and likely to lose in his Senate as well. There are a number of votes so committed, so it is a waste of time. It would need a majority in BOTH chambers to select any alternative votes.

Second, he likely knows that if something like that is done, and the election is thrown into the house, it opens the door to any political hardball that his counterpart in the house could pull. I am sure he does not underestimate her. Neither should the rest of us. She has been involved in politics since infancy.

J.M.