Electoral College Bypass - Possible?

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

https://politicalcharge.org/2022/08/01/ ... aking-out/

Popular Vote Compact: The Reason The Federalist is Freaking Out

So, a few days ago, the Federalist tweeted out an article with this ominous sounding post: “Democrats Are Dangerously Close To Changing Laws So Our President Is Elected By Popular Vote.”

Besides making it clear that Republicans are terrified of democracy and regular ol’ Americans choosing their elected officials, it also renewed interest in the Popular Vote Compact.

The key is that while the Constitution stipulates that each state (plus D.C.) get a certain number of electors who cast a vote for the President, it is up to the states to determine HOW those electors vote.

Currently, the states assign all of their electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the most votes in that state. But there are two exceptions that prove that the Popular Vote Compact can work. Both Maine and Nebraska assign their electoral votes differently. (Some votes are assigned based on the statewide winner, and the rest of their votes are assigned based on the winner of individual congressional districts.)

When states sign on to the Popular Vote Compact, what will happen is that instead of assigning their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes in that state, they’ll assign all their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes in the nation.

Let’s look at an example: Right now North Carolina is considering the Compact. They get 16 electoral votes. In the 2020 election, Trump won 2.3M votes to Hillary’s 2.1M votes, so he got their electoral votes. If the Popular Vote Compact had been in place, Hillary would have gotten those 16 votes because she won the national popular vote.

[raison de arizona]

Is not a popular Republican point these days that the legislature decides how electoral votes are allocated? What’s good for the goose…

[bob]

The NPVIC occasionally was discussed on the Oldbow.

Legalities aside, the compact has been enacted by 15 states and DC, which are very blue and currently have 195 electoral votes.

As Al Gore, John Kerry, etc. will tell you, 195 is less than 270.

[jcolvin2]

So, a few days ago, the Federalist tweeted out an article with this ominous sounding post: “Democrats Are Dangerously Close To Changing Laws So Our President Is Elected By Popular Vote.”

My favorite comment on this headline was, "The Onion Completes its Hostile Take Over of the Federalist."

[keith]

The NPVIC occasionally was discussed on the Oldbow.

Legalities aside, the compact has been enacted by 15 states and DC, which are very blue and currently have 195 electoral votes.

As Al Gore, John Kerry, etc. will tell you, 195 is less than 270.

But the compact only comes into force when enough states sign on to provide the 270 magic number.

[Sam the Centipede]

I'm sure this was discussed on Ye Foggebow before the asteroid not the server, which was also and before Trumpzilla rampaged around DC tearing up the rulebooks and smashing notions of decency.

It's a neat idea but it's only ever going to appeal to Democrats because it attacks the baked-in Republican bias. It offers Republicans nothing except the virtue of fairness. Fairness?! That's wholly antithetical to core Republican principles!

But, as a counterfactual, suppose the pact came into play, and, lookee!, Democrat popular vote, Republican college vote (with current processes). How likely is it that all Republican states, especially including those with Trumpnutters, would honor that pact? Wanna buy a beautiful bridge?

And would those Republican electors chargesd with the duty of voting for a Democrat all do so? Ih. I also have some wonderful swampland you might be interested in, great value and excellent opportunity for farming or building.

[Foggy]

Let’s look at an example: Right now North Carolina is considering the Compact. They get 16 electoral votes. In the 2020 election, Trump won 2.3M votes to Hillary’s 2.1M votes ...

I can't keep track anymore. I would have sworn Hillary didn't get any votes at all in my state in 2020.

Joe Biden didn't win either.

[neonzx]

Let’s look at an example: Right now North Carolina is considering the Compact. They get 16 electoral votes. In the 2020 election, Trump won 2.3M votes to Hillary’s 2.1M votes ...

I can't keep track anymore. I would have sworn Hillary didn't get any votes at all in my state in 2020.

Joe Biden didn't win either.

She totally did, so did Joe. I saw the votes in HER EMAILS. They were there.

[bob]

But the compact only comes into force when enough states sign on to provide the 270 magic number.

Exactly: the compact isn't going to get enough states with 270 electoral votes.

In 2024, 2042, 2224, 2424, and 22024, it'll still be "any day now."

* * *

It's a neat idea but it's only ever going to appeal to Democrats because it attacks the baked-in Republican bias.

How likely is it that all Republican states, especially including those with Trumpnutters, would honor that pact? Wanna buy a beautiful bridge?

And would those Republican electors chargesd with the duty of voting for a Democrat all do so?

Yup: It would be off to the federal courts for some break-neck post-election litigation.

States can dissuade faithless electors. Or least that's what SCOTUS had once said. And, in theory, the compact should bind the electors, to prevent faithlessness.

But it is all just theory.

[Sam the Centipede]

Thx bob, I always appreciate your wisdom … if you're agreeing with me!

I get the faithless electors thing and the US Supreme Court once ruling about dissuading them, but I can also imagine a signed-up Republican-controlled state under new administration supporting their electors voting with the state rather than with the national popular vote … so who's going to raise the complaint? The state legislature has no interest in promoting Democrats, their courts might well side with the legislature, and as for the US Supreme Court – would anybody expect the Trump-appointees, those assholes, reprobates and liars, to vote for right over might? They would concoct an opinion that the deal aims to subvert the mechanism provided in the constitution so must be unconstitutional, or something like that.

And a state might withdraw from the pact as soon as it was probably or definitely in play. Of course there would be safeguards against that built into the act/treaty, but it would be an naive optimist who put much faith in those holding against a Republican attack.

The correct way of resolving this issue is clearly a constitutional amendment to amend the vote to a national popular vote. Maybe in calmer times that might become a plausible possibility.

But for now, no amendment, and no workaround, just dreams.

[northland10]

Right now, an amendment is the only safe path. I would not want to try to do a workaround that would end up in front of the current SCOTUS. I don't want to give them the option to fiddle around with it.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

AND it should be written in archaic 1789 language so the Federalist Society can be fooled into thinking it was the Founding Fathers' original intent.

[Danraft]

I’ll just beat this old dead horse, haha.
If, by act of Congress, the number of Congressional seats were tripled so that a reasonable representation (as intended by the Framers) of the districts was enacted (by tripling the number of districts) the Electoral College magic number would change from 270 to 708.

The beauty is that this causes the Electoral College to represent the people better without a Constitutional amendment.

Yes. Having more seats requires some innovative construction of the actual House. So what? Do we let democracy die because of some construction costs?

[bob]

The legislators' offices aren't even in the Capitol. So it is just new office buildings and more seats in the House chamber.

There are some interesting articles about the size of states' and other countries' legislatures, and typically how many people does a representative represent.

There are various relatively modest proposals that would roughly double the number of representatives, and make it so the number doesn't have an absolute ceiling. I don't think Congress a century ago thought through the math.

But none of those will pass unless the Democrats control the presidency, the House, and the Senate with a filibuster-proof majority, as representation suppression favors the Republicans.