Yes he did, if you discount the voter fraud…
(d+r)
What, you all can’t read my mind? 
Here’s what I considered “nonsense” when I wrote the OP: primarily, the lawsuits. All those court cases over who can get an absentee ballot, how do they get returned…is it received by Election Day? Or postmarked by Election Day? Why do some states start counting ballots when they receive them, and some don’t even open the envelope until the polls close? That nonsense. Let’s all set the ground rules before the next game.
Oh, other than the lawsuits, that one is easy. We need two more Dem senators it looks like. Maybe only one.
Yes, I’m pretty sure you can do that…effectively anyways. They can pass laws that instruct their electors to do literally anything. A state could require it’s electors to vote for Mickey Mouse regardless of what the state popular vote says. That’s sort of why the Electoral Collage is so asinine.
Here’s why:
States in the compact, and other states that announce their results in full: Candidate D, 50 million votes; Candidate R, 35 million votes
States not in the compact that, “for example,” are Republican-controlled: Candidate D, 7 million votes; Candidate R, 9 million votes; note that Candidate R won in every state
If all results are announced, Candidate D has 57 million votes to Candidate R’s 44 million.
However, if the non-reporting states only report the number of votes and the winner, then Candidate D has 50 million reported votes while Candidate R has 51 million (yes, that includes the 7 million that voted for Candidate D in the non-reported states - How About That!).
This is why the Interstate Compact needs some form of national independent vote-counting authority, including in the non-compact states, in order to function as intended.
So, basically, if some State decides to lie about its election result, that would potentially be a problem. Again, why would this be more likely to happen, or easier to get away with, under NPV than under the current system?
At this particular moment, I am feeling quite happy that there is no Federal agency with the authority to overrule States’ reports on what their election results were! I guess technically there is and we call it “Congress”, but you know what I mean.
Yes, they can totally decide not to hold a Presidential election. In early American history, many States didn’t, the legislature just decided which candidate the State would vote for. Once more with feeling, States get to allocate their electoral votes HOWEVER THEY WANT. They can’t decide to not have elections at all, of course; the Constitution does require States to have a “republican form of government”.
I agree that the clauses of the Compact in which States promise not to change their minds for a certain time are almost certainly unenforceable.
You seem to fear that a State might back out after the election and send Electors supported by its majority party in order to steal the election from the NPV winner. But there is nothing to prevent any State from trying that stunt now. If some State that’s carried by Biden but controlled by Republicans is crucial to the outcome this year, we might well see it.
I’m pretty sure SCOTUS would rule that it violates the rights of voters to change the rules retroactively, but I’m not a lawyer and there’s no way to tell until someone actually tries it.
Under the current system, it would have no effect (well, unless it was Nebraska or Maine), as the winner in each state is announced, so there is no incentive to do it.
Sure, but there’s incentive for States to lie about their totals in order to give their EV to the candidate of that State’s ruling party, and that doesn’t happen. Well, there was that one time.
But OK, fine, pass a law requiring States to submit detailed vote totals in order to have their Electors certified. I’m actually about 99% sure such a law already exists, but if not, pass it. Crisis averted.
Cite?
This is not true. While indeed the states do currently have the power to decide how to allocate, they only have that power as every single state gives the votes to the winner. If any state tried crap, it’d be taken away super fast.
This is like saying Queen Elizabeth has all sort of power- as long as she never tries to use any of it.
I’d like to see a cite for this, as it seems to me you’re talking about how senators were chosen before the constitution was amended to have direct voting for that office.
If you look at the history of individual elections in the early 19th century and earlier, you can see this.
Here, for example is the Wikipedia page for the 1820 election
It has a table showing which states had electors chosen by legislature and which ones were chosen by popular vote in the state. It’s about half and half.
Here’s a page that purports to list all of the elector appointment methods through 1832. Looks like 1828 was the last election that had electors not chosen by vote.
in the first place, it’s not true that every single State gives its votes to the winner; two of them split it up by Congressional district.
Secondly, it would take a Constitutional amendment to take that power away from the States. Given that the number of States which have already ratified the NPV Compact would be sufficient to block an amendment, it seems highly doubtful that the power would be taken away at all, much less “super fast”.
Whoa, someone is capable of doing thirty seconds worth of their own research rather than demanding “cites” for stuff that’s common knowledge among educated people. My faith in humanity is restored. Well, not really.
Imagine if DeJoy had been put in charge of a federal election commission.
I see no problem in the piecemeal release of results. The problem is a goon who tries to stop counting in a state where he currently leads, but wants to continue in a state he is currently behind and catching up (maybe). This has never happened before and may never happen again. I hate it when one person violates a trust and a law is put in that impacts everybody negatively just to prevent that one miscreants abuse.
Massive online voting. Fully encrypted. Individuals spend thousands of dollars daily online, essentially “voting” with their wallets that the “results” will be accurate, and they will get their “candidate” purchases. Surely people can be convinced the same could happen for voting, right? <
Seeing as online banking is pretty secure, then online voting could be an option. Maybe by mailing in advance to all registered voters a chip with an encrypted hashed number (to preserve anonymity) and vote online on the day. And hand the chip in when voting with a paper ballot, so as to avoid voting twice. Online voting would give you the results from the postal votes before the paper ballots have been counted. I know, not everybody could or would vote online, so you still need to have the old-style form of voting.
Hasn’t Kavanaugh endorsed the perspective that it’s unconstitutional to put any restrictions on a legislature’s ability to appoint electors however the hell they want? Shouldn’t that be addressed in some way first, before any of this other discussion in this thread? If ruled kosher, it would render every state law on electors pretty much moot, wouldn’t it?
Agreed about the online banking, as that too is why I mentioned it. In the back of my brain, something like the encrypted chip being mailed was rattling around, but I didn’t think it through. But yes, this sounds simple enough.