First of all: In 2000 one State was very very close, but we’ve never had a very very close popular national vote for President. If you think that is a necessary fact of statistics please start a Pit thread “Statistics: Explain it to me like I’m an imbecile because I am.”
We just witnessed blatant ugly cheating to turn one Delgate seat in Virginia. But you think the Republcian Governor and Electors of Florida would have happily voted for Gore? Note that, even with their hands theoretically tied, Florida would need a recount just to see which electors cast their votes under NPVIC. And there’d be chance for litigation in other states as well, if the popular vote were close. Your comments seem to assume that no legal controversy could be invented. Would you like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge please?
In your examples it might start with the Florida Electors simply casting their votes for Bush and saying “Sue us!” Your move. (Remember we got the Alito-Gorsuch court now, if it gets that far.)
Really? Care to explain, without handwaving of course, why the losing candidate in an election decided by the NPVIC would not have standing to sue in court? Alternatively, heal thyself.
If there’s any hand waving going on, it is about the shortfalls and problems of this proposal. In fact, there’s so much handwaving going on in that front that I’m a little worried that you might start flying with all of the flapping of extremities going on.
There’s a whole lot of “This is unconstitutional! Congress will never allow it! The courts will interfere! It will be stopped!” going on, but not a lot of how, is there? It takes more than repeated assertions to make up a debate.
It’s usually up to proponents to make the case that their idea is solid. In this thread, we have just seen all the various posts that say, “There’s a problem here… and one there… and another there” followed with your your posts saying “Nuh-uh! YOU’RE handwaving! YOU’RE the puppet!”
Obviously, it’s impossible to know how a court would rule on this unless it actually comes into effect, somebody sues, and it goes to court.
The argument I’d make, though, is like the one I gave earlier. First, I’d argue it’s an unconstitutional compact. Second, I’d make an equity argument…that the majority/plurality of voters in the state voted for candidate X, and the compact violates the will of the voter by naming electors pledged to vote for candidate Y. It’s a weak argument given prior caselaw, but I’d make it anyway, because I’m a liberal and I like equity arguments.
I’m going to interpret this as a general statement directed towards no one in particular but it could easily go the other way. Dial back the rhetoric - it’s not effective and will earn you sanction in the future.
That’s the question, dammit- who would sue, where, and on what basis, or what legislation Congress would pass. If you’re going to insist it would be stopped, some plausible idea of *how *would be helpful.
I’ve seen, at least, three theories presented already.
Dave Democrat wins the majority of the vote in Hawaii, however Roger Republican wins the plurality of the national vote. Dave sues the Hawaii Secretary of State (or equivalent) in federal district court in Hawaii seeking to block Hawaii’s electors from being required to vote for Roger on the grounds that the NPVIC is an unconstitutional compact.
Dave Democrat wins the majority of the vote in Hawaii, however Roger Republican wins the plurality of the national vote. Eloise Elector feels that Hawaii’s electoral votes should be allocated based on Hawaii’s vote, so she sues in Hawaii federal court on the grounds that the NPVIC is an unconstitutional compact…
Same as 2, but instead of suing, Eloise and a majority of the Hawaii delegation meet and cast Hawaii’s electoral votes for Dave. Roger sues to block the result, seeking to compel Hawaii to apply the NPVIC.
I don’t know if any of these work, but it might be helpful if you explained why you think they won’t.
I told you, already, in the same post you quoted. An elector for the candidate who won the popular vote in the state where the electors were awardedicated to the other candidate could sue to be named as elector, on the grounds that interstate compacts are unconstitutional on their face and that refusing to seat him or her goes against the will of the voters of the state.
You can certainly claim that a lot of states doing the same thing individually is somehow in violation of part of the Constitution that is clearly meant for different purposes. But then you also have to claim that this part of the Constitution is somehow unconstitutional: “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.”
IOW claiming that such a suit would even be plausible is, well, let’s just be kind and call it dubious, okay?
It’s not actually a revolutionary claim that a state (or federal) government might, in exercising its constitutional powers, be constrained by other provisions of the Constitution, without concluding that those powers are, themselves, unconstitutional.
The legislatures of all states and DC do so direct that their electors are appointed according to popular vote - as of today. It hasn’t always been so, and there is nothing in the US Constitution requiring it to be so.
