I think it’s safe to say that that aspect of the Founders’ intent has long since been circumvented.
Poly’s right, of course, about the Constitution: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…” - Article II, Section 1, second paragraph.
The Compact doesn’t need the participation of all the states - as long as states that have at least 270 electoral votes participate, it’s a done deal as long as the Compact holds. A clause in the legislation says the Compact doesn’t take effect until states with at least 270 EVs total are participating, so nothing happens under the Compact until the Compact is controlling.
Here’s a question, though: let’s say the Compact had been in effect in 2000, with a mix of red and blue states in on the deal. The day after the election (but well before the EC vote), one of the Red states, one with a GOP governor, repeals its participation in the Compact, declaring that it will pledge its electors to vote for Bush.
Would that be legal? I can’t see why not. What the legislature ratifies, the legislature can repeal. And this is the problem: there’s nothing binding about the Compact.
And as such, it would favor the ruthless over those who honor their word. Never a good thing.
Good point. But I think the Constitution is so clear cut about this that the Courts would uphold almost any arguably democratic method of choosing Electors.
That would only work if states with 50% of the EC vote are part of the Compact, not just 50% of the states. Which I guess is what you’re saying this proposal calls for (On preview I see Robot Arm and ** RTFirefly ** confirmed this). Makes sense, but I would guarantee you that somemone would bring a case to the Supreme Court that the Compact states are using their en-bloc EC votes to diserefranchise the EC votes of the non-EC states. Yes, I know their not disenfranchising the votes of the * people *, but the constitution doesn’t say anything about the people voting for the president- just the EC. Whether that would fy with the SC I couldn’t tell you- but I’d bet someone would bring the case.
Of course not. Electors are chosen in accordance with the law in effect at the time of their election. If it were otherwise, states could play games even today–any legislature which didn’t like the results of the election within its own state could change the law after the fact and appoint electors itself.
I agree; in our litigious society, people will be filing suit the day the compact goes into effect, or even before. I just don’t happen to think they would win. If they do, then we’re no worse off than we are today.
A state like Texas has a great deal of motivation, since it is in the same boat as California–ignored because it belongs safely to one party. I hope that Texans don’t oppose it just because, by blind happenstance, the EC favored their favorite son in 2000; their ox could be the one gored next time.
The minute this is perceived as an effort by one party or the other to game the sytem to its advantage, it’s dead. Unless a big red-state like Texas, Virginia, or Georgia gets behind it, it probably won’t go anywhere.
Another problem with the Compact proposal- There is no “official certified” count of the national popular vote, so who’s total do they (the Compact states) use? Of course there are 51 official counts, certified by the state election officials (and DC’s), but when does the national vote get certified? And who does the certifying, and under what authority? For that matter what happens if the count in an individual state gets contested and a recount is ordered (especially in a non-Compact state)? Does a national recount get ordered? How is it binding on non-Compact states (who presumably will not want to facilitate the Compact system)? For that matter, what if a national recount *should * be ordered based on the closeness of the overall national count? Al Gore’s “victory” of 2000 would certainly be grounds for trigerring such a recount, if the Compact system had been in place , with a less than 1% margin of victory (actually about 0.5%), Again, how would this be binding on the non-Compact states?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for abolishing the EC (and not just for polictical reasons. In fact more for non political reasons than anything else). But if we’re going to do it, do it the right way. Change the system they way it was meant to be changed, by ammending the Constitution. There will be no question but that everybody agrees to the change in the manner set forth by Constitution. There will be a legal framework for conducting and certifying the election nationally (I would hope out of this would come national voting standards and a national election board). If we can’t get an ammendment banning the EC through, then the Compact really would be what the OP calls it: an end-run around the Constitution. Non compact states really would feel cheated- not in election results sense but in a “hey, we didn’t agree to this in the way were supposed to agree to this” sense, esp. if the Compact bloc consists of relatively few states, and they would be right. A Compact system might ultimately prove legal and Constitutional (although I have my doubts), but it still wouldn’t seem right.
It’s stupid, and I htink **RTF **made a good case for why. No state controlled by one party is going to switch it’s electors to the opposite party. Neither the Pubs nor the Dems would go thru with that.
A better solution would be to just dole out the electors proportionately to the votes in your state, like NE and MN do now. And if enough states really want to junk the EC, then there’s an ever better way to do it-- constitutional amendment.
I don’t see it as an “end run around the Constitution” but rather an “end run around the practical effect of the Electoral College withing the bounds of the Constitution.”
I believe the legislation has provisions in it prohibiting Compact states from withdrawing from the Compact at or near election time… so no game-playing allowed within, I think, a few months of an election.
I don’t see it as an “end run around the Constitution” but rather an “end run around the practical effect of the Electoral College withing the bounds of the Constitution.”
I believe the legislation has provisions in it prohibiting Compact states from withdrawing from the Compact at or near election time… so no game-playing allowed within, I think, a few months of an election.
I don’t think a state can pass legislation forbiding itself from passing further legislation. It would have to put it in its consititution in order to do that. No?
And what determines when the electors are elected?
State law.
Didn’t the FL legislature threaten to do exactly that in 2000 if the recount flipped the state to Gore? Or is my memory playing tricks on me? (That’s not a rhetorical question, btw. I used to be a professor; I’m still absent-minded.)
Another wrinkle… what happens when the congressional reapportionment is done every 10 years with the census ? What if the Compact bloc looses its electoral majority?
Well as I said, it may pass legal and Constitutional test, but it seems unethical to essentially blackmail non-approving states into something they didn’t agree to, by changing the clear intent of the Constitution. For example, would you be OK for a president, having served two terms, getting “around” the 22nd amendment by running a “faux” ticket of two other people, who, upon winning the presidency would then have the vice-president resign, appoint an ex-president as vice-president, and then then have the newly-elected president resign? Forget about the likelyhood for a sec- or even the Constitutionality (I’m sure someone will bring up the 12th amendment), on its face, the 22nd ammenment of the Constitution clearly doesn’t want this situation to occur- even though it doesn’t explcitly prohibit it. I would say the same is true of the EC.
If the Compact were to come to pass, one would hope that the non-Compact states would see the writing on the wall and allow an ammendment to pass to deal with the potential messes this sytem would bring up, but again it smacks of coercion.
Let alone prevent another state from passing legislation; even a state constitution couldn’t do that.
And this raises the ugly little question of voter fraud.
From a strictly rational (i.e., cynical) point of view, a lot of areas don’t have a problem with voter fraud because one party or the other can count on a safe majority of votes. If your candidates are crusing along with 54% of the vote, it isn’t worth it for either party to steal 1% of the votes.
In a Presidential election, the few real swing states where 1% of the vote can swing the election are balanced out by states like California (usually safely Democratic) or Texas (ditto for the Republicans.)
Now, imagine a scenario where party X can steal a few thousand votes in each state. Suddenly, every vote, even those from a rural precinct that’s voted strictly one-party for the last 100 years, becomes equally worth stealing.
Those nice old people who serve as election judges in my precinct are going to be overwhelmed.
Everytime I see one of these discussions its enevitably nothing more than a Bush stole 2000 diatribe.
There is nothing wrong with the Electoral College. It does not need to be “fixed”. It isn’t broken. It is an emensely better and more fair system than a direct popular vote. It gives all states a much, much bigger influence. Instead of having to campaign and win merely one big election, a candidate must stump for and ultimately win a majority of 50 small elections.
You do realize that this will backfire when the people, who are used to having their votes decide the results in their state, find that their votes don’t go to the person they expect it to because some shlubs in some nothing state provided the swing vote away from their expected result, don’t you?
Imagine, if you will, that California went Democrat big, but their electoral votes went to a Republican because of the voting behaviors in Wyoming and Utah. There would be hell to pay, and rightfully so. The people of any given state have been given to think that their vote matters with respect to their state. If you take that belief away, if you make the voters think that their results can and will be swayed by other states with dissimilar laws, economic interests, racial compositions, etc., they will lose any interest in voting. You may as well go back to the old days where the electors did whatever they wanted to anyway.
The system is fine the way it is. The campaigns are tailored to the electoral system, the popular vote generally tracks with the electoral vote (in cases that it hasn’t it’s been a margin of error difference), and it’s only happened 3 times in 55 elections, with the first 2 and arguably all 3 times not really making any difference (depending entirely on who you talk to). The only way it could be improved is by tracking it directly to the popular vote, and that will never happen for political reasons, the same reasons why this half-baked idea will never fly.
Since the 1840’s, federal law has required that electors be chosen on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
No, there wouldn’t. The minute this system is adopted, people will understand that the popular vote determines the president. The electoral college will be forgotten. There won’t be any more colored maps on election night–just dueling vote counts. The fact that California’s nominal electoral votes are cast for the winner won’t be any more remarkable than the fact that California can vote majority-Democratic and still be governed by a Republican President today.
In other words, they’re tailored to a handful of swing states. Since I don’t live in one of those states, I don’t think the system is fine.
The founders understood what many now have forgotten, ignore, or never knew: the US government is a balancing act between the Federal government, State governments and the People.
The purpose of the Electoral College was to balance the more versus less populous states in regards to the selection of the President. However, the population scale isn’t ignored, since the electoral delegation size is proportional to the state’s allocated number of US Representatives.
This purpose was also reflected in the original method for selecting US Senators: they used to selected by the state legislatures.
As far as I know, states are free to determine the method of allocating their electoral votes, which are basically binding in the first round of voting. However, once there, electors may change their original vote if more than one round is required, and I’m not certain that electors are actually legally bound to vote in a certain way…
As for the proposed legislation, the smaller states aren’t stupid enough to support such a scheme. It would similar to an amendment abolishing the US Senate, or making the number of Senators proportional to population size: it goes against the idea of balancing state versus federal power, by vesting states influence in the federal government (which was annhilated by shifting US senators to popular vote), and protecting smaller states from potential domination by larger states.
The US is a constitutiuonal republic, not a democracy. Suffrage is buffered by core protection of smaller groups of citizens or states, and certain issues are not amenable to voting away.
