[QUOTE=Freddy the Pig]
The Supreme Court has historically been pretty friendly to interstate compacts. The current construction appears to be that compacts don’t require Congressional approval unless they’re “directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States”. Since states have explicit plenary power over the mode of choosing electors, it’s hard to see how this compact would encroach upon federal power.
(Actually, I’m not sure this plan even rises to the level of an “interstate compact”, since it doesn’t seem to entail any interstate enforcement mechanism. It sounds more like a simple reciprocity law. But the authors describe it as an interstate compact on their web site, so I’ll take their word for it.)
[/QUOTE]
My constitutional concerns concerned the explicit interstate compact I mentioned and not the plan discussed here. But thanks for the information.
It seems that we both agree that one distorting factor can tip either way but another does persistently favor the GOP. So why don’t you agree that it is to the GOP’s advantage to preserve the EC? They know they will always start out with an edge, after all.
Just my 2sense