I’m trying to highlight the reason Anny Middon’s proposal won’t work: no state wants to go first, everyone wants the other side’s reliable states to go first. Thank you for assisting me in highlighting this with your comment about Texas.
Let’s say all of us go to the pool for a swim. We can all jump in the pool at anytime we want.
But if nobody jumps into the pool before 50% of us jump in the pool, the act of 50% of us linking hands to jump in the pool at the same time means conclusively that half of us are acting under an agreement with each other to jump at the same time. It is silly to claim: “I can jump into the pool right now if I wanted to, but when a bunch of other people actually do it, I will too at the exact same time… but we are NOT coordinating with each other.”
I mean, get real.
OK, suit yourself, it’s a compact. Now tell us why it needs Congress’ approval.
He already did. See post #2.
Look, this is pretty basic. Article I, Section 10 is all about saying, ‘no, the states of this new nation aren’t going to be like individual nation-states if this Constitution is ratified, and specifically, here’s a bunch of things that independent nations routinely do, that states of the United States of America won’t have the right to do without the consent of the national Congress.’
Nations can enter into compacts with one another; states can’t without Congress’ approval. Article I, Section 10 says so. It’s that simple.
Well, until you dissolve state governments good luck with that.
Why aren’t you worried about disproportionate influence of random demographics at the international level? Aren’t national boundaries as fictional as state?
RTF: Nothing the states would be doing in this system is something that independent nations routinely do.
Let me be more specific: How, in the Constitutional sense, is this specific arrangement not constitutional? Please be reminded that the Constitution *explicitly *provides that the states shall select their own electors.
C-O-M-P-A-C-T. Article I, Section 10 explicitly says that’s a no-no.
No question that the states can individually decide to give their electors to the popular vote winner, regardless of who got more votes in their state.
They just can’t make a compact with other states concerning this activity unless Congress gives its blessing.
There are lots of things that are legal for one party to do, that are illegal for multiple parties to coordinate on. If I own a gas station at a busy intersection and I want to raise prices, I’m free to do so. But if the other three corners of the intersection also have gas stations, we can’t make an agreement to all raise prices together.
Same thing here, by the authority of the aforementioned Article I, Section 10. Why are we still having this conversation?
OK, now I’ve got Aretha’s voice singing melodiously in my head! 
Don’t know what this has to do with anything. A national popular vote for President (whether enacted through Constitutional amendment or through the process this thread suggests) wouldn’t affect state governments.
Whatever this is referring to (and I’m not sure what it has to do with my posts) doesn’t appear to have anything to do with this thread’s topic.
Based on the wikipedia article and googling, the constitutionality of this proposal doesn’t seem nearly as clear-cut as you’re suggesting, RTFirefly. IANAL, but there plenty of constitutional lawyers who assert that it’s constitutional (as well as those who claim it is not), according to the series of tubes.
To me, I think it would be one thing if all the states agreed to the Nebraska or Maine approach, which is something that is set up in advance. The NPVIC sets up a system that changes every election, depending on what happens in other states. That doesn’t sound like a Republican form of government to me. Ultimately, it goes to the SCOTUS and Kennedy decides.
I mean, the constitution says the states get to decide how the electors are chosen, but could a state say that it was going to consult the state Astrologer on how to do so? Again, not Republican.
Glad to see you know how to spell. :rolleyes: *Definition *is the problem, though.
So we’re done, right?
Often asserted, never explained. But you can fix that.
That’s a restraint of trade problem, not the existence of an agreement. States can’t restrain trade, either. So?
Maybe because some people would rather spell words than discuss content?
OK, feel free to summarize their arguments here.
Brightens one’s day, doesn’t it? 
Considering that nearly everything reminds me of a song (my wife and son will vouch for this - drives them nuts! :D), I’m surprised I didn’t make that connection when I was typing it!
What explanation is needed beyond quoting Article 1, section 10?
But even with the need to get Congress’s approval, it’s still a heck of a lot easier than passing an amendment.
The traditional EC only becomes determinative again if enough states repeal their enacting legislation to drop the total below 50%. But that would be known in advance of the election.
I’m a little surprised that the wikipedia article never mentions the “Republican form of government” clause. I notice that the wikipedia article on that clause says:
But then it says:
Where are those lawyers when you need them?
I see a problem with any sort of popular vote election for President - who counts the votes?
If each state does it, then what stops the states that don’t support the compact from passing the following law:
“The ‘official’ statewide vote count for a Presidential election shall be that the candidate with the most votes shall be announced as having received all of the eligible votes cast in that election, and all other candidates shall have received zero votes, until January 21 of the year following the one in which the election took place, at which time the official counts shall reflect the actual votes cast for each candidate.”
For example, in Florida, there were 9,420,039 votes cast, of which 4,617,886 were for Trump and 4,504,975 were for Clinton. Up through 1/20/2017, the “official” Florida count would be, 9,420,039 for Trump, and zero for Clinton.
Going by the vote counts on Wikipedia, if every state did this, then the final result would have been:
Trump, 77,197,104
Clinton, 59,472,133
Is there any federal law requiring the states to announce the popular vote? Can the feds even require that?
I fully acknowledge that. But I also recognize that sometimes lawyers are not providing a dispassionate analysis of the law, and are simply making a case for their clients.
In this particular case, there are two constitutional provisions at play:
- The Constitution lets states determine their method of determining electors.
- The Constitution says interstate compacts require congressional approval.
Supporters are saying “Only pay attention to number 1; it overrides number 2.”
I, and some other critics are saying, “That’s not how laws work. If you can find a way to give two conflicting provisions of law effect, you are supposed to read those provisions as not having one override the other.”
That’s what leads me to my conclusion: states can choose electors by many methods, but if they are acting in concert with other states to choose electors by one particular method, that is subject to congressional approval.
I should also add that there is one paper out there that suggests that Congress is prohibited from approving such an interstate compact. The idea is that the Constitution does not provide for a popular election, and also the Supremacy Clause prohibits laws that would violate the Constitution. So this argument goes, passing a law that provides for popular vote elections is contrary to the Constitution, so Congress can’t pass a law that is in effect rewriting the Constitution.
I don’t think I totally buy that argument, but it is an interesting perspective.