You left out part of the rule. The Constitution says that each state can decide how its electors get picked.
I'm not sure if that opens the door for them to say (for example), "However California's vote goes, that's how our electors shall vote."
You left out part of the rule. The Constitution says that each state can decide how its electors get picked.
I'm not sure if that opens the door for them to say (for example), "However California's vote goes, that's how our electors shall vote."
While a state can decide how its electors are decided, it cannot nullify or dilute the votes of its own voters. There are other Constitutional provisions at play.
Equal Protection. I do not believe that a state can vote its electors according to the vote in another state because that means that the votes of its voters are not counted equally.
If we get rid of the electoral college, then by the same logic we should get rid of the U.S. Senate too.
There are valid reasons for both.
You left out part of the rule. The Constitution says that each state can decide how its electors get picked.
This violates the spirit of the Constitution, not the text, even by originalists standards. I paraphrase, the electors are selected in a manner dictated by the states.
Sorry, nice thought...
IM
Combination Among the States: Why the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an Unconstitutional Attempt to Reform the Electoral College ? Harvard Journal on Legislation
Combination Among the States: Why the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an Unconstitutional Attempt to Reform the Electoral College
Can't do it. And whoever came up with this should be jailed and fined. Heavily, so as to be a deterrent to others.
Talk about unintended consequences. This is pretty much blue states passing this. Sure it’s pending votes in other states, but only the blue and maybe a split of purple states will actually pass it.
This gives an advantage to red states because all their electorial votes go to the winner in that state. In the case where a democrat wins the popular vote, no big deal because they’d have gone blue anyway. The delicious part, California could be the state which puts the Republican past the 270 electoral votes because they won the popular vote byba few.
As long as the sane states stay sane (there’s no accounting for Florida) and reject this nonsense, no harm if the dem wins popular vote because their votes always go there anyway, and boon tor Repubs if they win it by popular vote. Oh to be there when the California and New York electors all have to cast their votes for a Republican.
Cynical derision.I wonder what the penalty is if they change their law after the election, but before the electoral college vote?
MM
Cynical derision.
Talk about unintended consequences. This is pretty much blue states passing this. Sure it’s pending votes in other states, but only the blue and maybe a split of purple states will actually pass it.
This gives an advantage to red states because all their electorial votes go to the winner in that state. In the case where a democrat wins the popular vote, no big deal because they’d have gone blue anyway. The delicious part, California could be the state which puts the Republican past the 270 electoral votes because they won the popular vote byba few.
As long as the sane states stay sane (there’s no accounting for Florida) and reject this nonsense, no harm if the dem wins popular vote because their votes always go there anyway, and boon tor Repubs if they win it by popular vote. Oh to be there when the California and New York electors all have to cast their votes for a Republican.
And now the Delaware house has passed this crap...
The Delaware House voted 24-17 to join an alliance of states that want to combine all their Electoral College votes and pledge them to presidential candidates who win the national popular vote.