National Popular Vote Compact

[RobertELee]

Anyone else heard about this? This is the first for me. It's an agreement between states that makes it law to give that states electors to the National Popular vote winner instead of the Electoral College winner, even if that state went a different way.

It's currently in place in 17 states plus DC. But only goes into effect when the total number of electors signed on reaches 270, currently at 209.

Tampon Tim made it law in MN earlier this year, and from the list it looks like all the states are blue that have enacted it.

6 small jurisdictions (District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont),
9 medium-sized states (Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington), and
3 big states (California, Illinois, New York). 

My question is, wouldn't this be unconstitutional being the electoral college is specifically written into it?

[beej]

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but it sure seems that way to me. But now I wonder how ask if the people who voted for harris would feel about their electors voting for trump. On this election trump would have 100% of the electoral votes, if the compact became law

[RobertELee]

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but it sure seems that way to me. But now I wonder how ask if the people who voted for harris would feel about their electors voting for trump. On this election trump would have 100% of the electoral votes, if the compact became law

I guess you could give the same argument with the EC for me voting red in a consistently blue state, county, and city. Don't like it but it is what it is.

Another issue I see coming from it is a much greater possibility that you wouldn't know the winner for days/weeks/months if the counts were being done the same way as they are now. Kali is currently only 58% reported, Arizona is 69% 2 days later.  etc.

[CNCAppsJames]

My question is, wouldn't this be unconstitutional being the electoral college is specifically written into it?

Astute question. Another rabbit hole for me to go down because I don't know how that would work with or against the Electoral College.

It should be noted the Democrats did essentially the same thing within California's election process and the Republicans have not been able to overcome the Democrat supermajority ever since. The state should be Democrat majority, not supermajority. It will never change back now no matter what. Consider yourself warned 

Get your crazy emoji ready smitforbrains and sucky...

Ranked Choice is NOT your friend. It's a Trojan horse that will destroy The Republic.

Ask yourself why California refuses to re-consider it's All or nothing electoral college vote result. If you can figure that out, you'll figure out why ANY change in electoral process Democrats put forward is BAD for The Republic.

Democrat run states willfully and routinely violate the US Constitution. Their modus operandi is "...let them sue us, we'll tie it up in court all the while we get to do what we want with zero repercussions."

The Demkkkrat party of today does not negotiate in good faith. If they are negotiating, it means they have a plan to screw you out of something and ultimately their goal is to screw Republicans and screw the Amerian  people that are not on their plantation.

[JParis]

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but it sure seems that way to me.

IANAL or a SCOTUS Justice....

Reading Article II  Executive Branch, particularly Clause 2 & 3

It would seem that States are the final arbiter on "How" their electoral votes are parceled out.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1/

If someone is aware of another Section or Clause relating to the Electoral votes, I would be curious to read it.
 

[Newbeeee™]

In Newbeeee world, all lawyers and judges would be rounded up and stuck in a high walled small field with a load of hungry pigs.

[beej]

IANAL or a SCOTUS Justice....

Reading Article II  Executive Branch, particularly Clause 2 & 3

It would seem that States are the final arbiter on "How" their electoral votes are parceled out.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1/

If someone is aware of another Section or Clause relating to the Electoral votes, I would be curious to read it.
 

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3
Also known as the Compact Clause, this clause of the Constitution prohibits states from entering into any agreement or compact with another state or a foreign power without the consent of Congress.

[Jeff]

In Newbeeee world, all lawyers and judges would be rounded up and stuck in a high walled small field with a load of hungry pigs.

Just give them to Bricktop!

https://www.tiktok.com/@paulmills2020/video/7146597616279702790?lang=en

[JParis]

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3
Also known as the Compact Clause, this clause of the Constitution prohibits states from entering into any agreement or compact with another state or a foreign power without the consent of Congress.

It is a stretch to apply that to the Electoral College....I will concede in a judicial setting, that is definitely something to argue.

[CNCAppsJames]

It is a stretch to apply that to the Electoral College....I will concede in a judicial setting, that is definitely something to argue.

Also INAL 😜

Democrat policies are nearly always stretching some legal precedent... if not outright tearing. 

I find it utterly deplorable that the left employs LEGIONS of lawyers who's sole job is to figure out new and inventive ways steal power for power's sake. It's almost like they WANT Civil War. 

 

[Newbeeee™]

Just give them to Bricktop!

https://www.tiktok.com/@paulmills2020/video/7146597616279702790?lang=en

Lots of pig farms around London, back in the day....

[beej]

It is a stretch to apply that to the Electoral College....I will concede in a judicial setting, that is definitely something to argue.

Yeah, like I said, I'm not a constitutional lawyer. In a world where they debate the actual definition of "is", I'm just a guy with preconceived ideas of yes or no.

[CNCAppsJames]

Yeah, like I said, I'm not a constitutional lawyer. In a world where they debate the actual definition of "is", I'm just a guy with preconceived ideas of yes or no.

I am STILL flabberghasted that William Jefferson Clinton was not mercilessly ridiculed for that "... it depends on what the definition of 'is' is...".

That... that right there is a part of why the general population has such disdain for the legal profession... where precision of language takes a back seat of intentional ambiguity and downright deception.