# The proposed National Popular Vote Interstate Compact **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 3, 2018, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797 "2018-01-03T14:23:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/241 "2018-01-09T18:06:37Z")
No, it’s the rule where, if you can find a part of the Constitution that’s obviously intended for another use but has the same word in it as in the name of a law that you object to, then you can claim equivalence to a part that explicitly permits it. Unless it’s the rule that lets you keep arguing even after you’ve been shown to be wrong. Maybe that’s it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/242 "2018-01-09T18:17:08Z")
Then it’s clear that the answer to **Ravenman’s** questions are: No and no. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/243 "2018-01-09T19:00:58Z")
Which is all I meant to establish, really. I wonder if this approach may apply to how **ElvisL1ves** may read a last will and testament. Imagine one that reads: 1. Joe gets $60,000. 2. Jan gets the house. 3. Jeremy gets the car. 4. Jackie gets the dog. 5. **Elvis** gets everything else. He may think: I don’t want the dog or the car, so I will hire an attorney to ask the judge to only enforce clauses 3, 4, and 5. The will makes perfect sense if we just ignore 1 and 2!!! Besides, those whiners Joe and Jan are just hand wavers anyway. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/244 "2018-01-09T20:06:01Z")
😃 ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/245 "2018-01-09T20:09:11Z")
Say, here’s an idea around the “interstate compacts are unconstitutional” problem: The minute that enough states support it so it would take effect, have those state legislatures “repeal and replace” it with identical laws that are not subject to other states’ laws. The only problems I can see with this off hand are: (a) Not every state might let the legislature do this, but might require a vote of the people; (b) There’s no guarantee that every state that voted for the compact still wants it, in which case, you run the risk of the popular vote winner not being elected - but you would think that enough electoral votes would be decided this way that the chance of the popular vote winner not being elected would be slim. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/246 "2018-01-09T21:03:41Z")
> [@That\_Don\_Guy](#): > > Say, here’s an idea around the “interstate compacts are unconstitutional” problem: > > The minute that enough states support it so it would take effect, have those state legislatures “repeal and replace” it with identical laws that are not subject to other states’ laws. > > The only problems I can see with this off hand are: > (a) Not every state might let the legislature do this, but might require a vote of the people; > (b) There’s no guarantee that every state that voted for the compact still wants it, in which case, you run the risk of the popular vote winner not being elected - but you would think that enough electoral votes would be decided this way that the chance of the popular vote winner not being elected would be slim. Remember when courts looked at Trump’s travel ban and his history of saying “Muslim ban Muslim ban Muslim ban Muslim ban Muslim ban Muslim ban Muslim ban Muslim ban… uh, this is NOT a Muslim ban… yeah, that’s the ticket!” You think the courts were generally swayed by the last few words uttered in pure coveryourassery, and ignored everything else said previously? If not, why do you think “Compact compact compact compact compact compact compact… uh, it isn’t a compact anymore… that’s the ticket!” is more convincing? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/247 "2018-01-09T21:12:24Z")
> [@That\_Don\_Guy](#): > > Say, here’s an idea around the “interstate compacts are unconstitutional” problem: Better idea. Interstate compacts are not unconstitutional in the first place. They are unconstitutional if they are not approved by congress, but as long as congress give its blessing then there is no problem, right? In order to get congress to pass a bill making these compacts legal would require far less than needed to get an amendment fixing the EC. If congress passed a bill making this compact valid, would any of the arguments against it in this thread be relevant anymore? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/248 "2018-01-09T21:16:30Z")
Sigh … Which of these parts of the Constitution applies to selecting electors? The one about states forming military alliances with each other, outside the structure of the federal government: > [@](#): > > No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. Or the one that actually **is** about the selection of electors: > [@](#): > > 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: You can keep saying “Compact compact compact” if you think that’s actually a relevant argument, but I assure you it is not, and that the laughter and pointing will only continue. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/249 "2018-01-09T21:27:27Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Better idea. Interstate compacts are not unconstitutional in the first place. > > They are unconstitutional if they are not approved by congress, but as long as congress give its blessing then there is no problem, right? > > In order to get congress to pass a bill making these compacts legal would require far less than needed to get an amendment fixing the EC. > > If congress passed a bill making this compact valid, would any of the arguments against it in this thread be relevant anymore? You still need to get 60 Senators, which is easier than getting 67, but only slightly more so. But the bigger hurdle is probably getting the thing to pass enough states in the first place, and there does not appear to be a realistic path for that happen. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/250 "2018-01-09T22:15:57Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Sigh … Which of these parts of the Constitution applies to selecting electors? The one about states forming military alliances with each other, outside the structure of the federal government: > > Or the one that actually **is** about the selection of electors: > > You can keep saying “Compact compact compact” if you think that’s actually a relevant argument, but I assure you it is not, and that the laughter and pointing will only continue. Do you think that states are free to disregard the 24th Amendment (abolition of poll taxes) under the argument that states can choose electors in any manner they wish, such as establishing elections with poll taxes? Do you think that states are free to disregard the 15th Amendment (right to vote not abridged by race) under the argument that states can choose electors in any manner they wish, such as establishing elections that are whites-only? Do you think that states are free to disregard the 19th Amendment (right to vote not abridged by sex) under the argument that states can choose electors in any manner they wish, such as establishing elections that are men-only? Do you think that states are free to disregard Art VI sec 3 (prohibition on religious tests for all public officers) under the argument that states can choose electors in any manner they wish, such as requiring electors to be only from the faith of the Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915? After considering the above, is it still your contention that Art II sec 1 (the appointing of electors) shall be read to the exclusion of all other provisions of the Constitution? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/251 "2018-01-09T22:37:06Z")
Did you see the exchange that started at post #220? Same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/252 "2018-01-09T22:48:42Z")
I read the handwaving in 224 and decided to re-engage. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/253 "2018-01-09T22:49:38Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You still need to get 60 Senators, which is easier than getting 67, but only slightly more so. But the bigger hurdle is probably getting the thing to pass enough states in the first place, and there does not appear to be a realistic path for that happen. Why is everything 60 votes anymore? Didn’t we use to pass things with 50? I know the republicans filibustered everything while Obama was president, but is that something that needs to continue forever? Anyway, that doesn’t answer my question. If congress were to pass a bill allowing this compact, would that not make all of the constitutional arguments in this thread moot? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/254 "2018-01-09T22:53:41Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Why is everything 60 votes anymore? Didn’t we use to pass things with 50? I know the republicans filibustered everything while Obama was president, but is that something that needs to continue forever? Well, it hasn’t been changed yet. Not for this type of vote. If Congress approved the compact, then that should resolve one constitutional problem. There might still be the issue of the states having to provide a “republican form of government”. Not sure how that would play out. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/255 "2018-01-09T23:30:02Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Do you think that states are free to disregard the 24th Amendment (abolition of poll taxes) under the argument that states can choose electors in any manner they wish, such as establishing elections with poll taxes? > > Do you think that states are free to disregard the 15th Amendment (right to vote not abridged by race) under the argument that states can choose electors in any manner they wish, such as establishing elections that are whites-only? > > Do you think that states are free to disregard the 19th Amendment (right to vote not abridged by sex) under the argument that states can choose electors in any manner they wish, such as establishing elections that are men-only? > > Do you think that states are free to disregard Art VI sec 3 (prohibition on religious tests for all public officers) under the argument that states can choose electors in any manner they wish, such as requiring electors to be only from the faith of the Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915? > > After considering the above, is it still your contention that Art II sec 1 (the appointing of electors) shall be read to the exclusion of all other provisions of the Constitution? > [@Bush v. Gore](#): > > The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college. U. S. Const., Art. II, § 1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892), that the state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28-33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (" ‘[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated’‘’) (quoting > > The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that > > of another. See, e. g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U. S. 663, 665 (1966) (“[O]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”). It must be remembered that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 555 (1964). So, it seems that any election permitted by the Legislature to allocate electors must abide by the 14th amendment and other voting rights provisions of the Constitution. The Supreme Court was silent on whether the other methods must also comport with equal protection and due process, but if it did not, it would be the only provision of the Constitution that does not. The only thing off the top of my head is that impeachment and conviction is held to be an unreviewable political question. However, what if the Congress in 2009 openly stated that it did not believe that a black person should be President and impeached and convicted Obama on those grounds. My guess is that the political question doctrine would be reviewed. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/256 "2018-01-09T23:44:16Z")
Only \*\*if \*\*popular voting is the Manner chosen by the Legislature for allocating electors, then the voting rights laws do kick in. It has not always been the Manner chosen - states often used to have their legislatures select electors. Nothing in the Constitution requires it, in fact it explicitly stays out of it. None of the other clauses that \*\*Ravenman \*\*unaccountably wants to be relevant, the actual text of the Constitution be damned, come into effect either, \*unless \*the Legislature chooses the Manner to be state-level popular vote. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/257 "2018-01-10T00:05:30Z")
Just to clarify, for those who I’m sure need it, yes, there is still voting going on and all the same legal protections of voting rights still apply. It’s just that the voting is for the President, by citizens of the US acting as such, not for a slate of electors, by citizens of that state acting as such. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/258 "2018-01-10T01:27:52Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Only \*\*if \*\*popular voting is the Manner chosen by the Legislature for allocating electors, then the voting rights laws do kick in. It has not always been the Manner chosen - states often used to have their legislatures select electors. Nothing in the Constitution requires it, in fact it explicitly stays out of it. None of the other clauses that \*\*Ravenman \*\*unaccountably wants to be relevant, the actual text of the Constitution be damned, come into effect either, \*unless \*the Legislature chooses the Manner to be state-level popular vote. Enough with the evasion. You’ve done it once before, and you’re doing it again. Can states ignore the constitutional amendments I referenced? The question requires no explanation, just a “yes, they can” or “no, they can’t.” I can hardly wait for an answer that is neither yes nor no, of course. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/259 "2018-01-10T02:09:12Z")
It’s inconceivable that someone would propose that an amendment does NOT supersede the existing text of the constitution, and any amendments preceding it\*. That is what an amendment is-- a change to the constitution. Amendments 11 and going forward. The first 10 are part of the original constitution, and are co-equal with it and each other. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797/260 "2018-01-10T03:44:42Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Only \*\*if \*\*popular voting is the Manner chosen by the Legislature for allocating electors, then the voting rights laws do kick in. It has not always been the Manner chosen - states often used to have their legislatures select electors. Nothing in the Constitution requires it, in fact it explicitly stays out of it. None of the other clauses that \*\*Ravenman \*\*unaccountably wants to be relevant, the actual text of the Constitution be damned, come into effect either, \*unless \*the Legislature chooses the Manner to be state-level popular vote. So it is your contention that so long as their is no popular voting in the state for President and Vice President, the state can allocate their electors in **absolutely** whatever manner it chooses, without regard to equal protection or due process? Could Alabama, in 2020, appoint its electors by, say, passing a law that the first white male property owner that calls the Governor on Election Day gets to select the slate of electors? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-proposed-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/805797.md?page=14)