The Electoral College achieved what the Framers feared most

No it's all about rural vs city dwellers, we don't need attention because we have 38 states on our side..


The Democrats are herded like cattle in a few counties where they can be controlled and indoctrinated the elites can't do it to us

 

The bill doesn't change ANYTHING in the Constitution. It is STATE legislatures changing STATE laws, enacted by STATE legislatures.

The Founders created the Electoral College, but 48 states eventually enacted state winner-take-all laws.

The U.S. Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ."

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is by state legislatures with governors making changes in state law.

Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation's first election in 1789. However, now, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.

In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all method (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all method is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.

In 1789, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state.

In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution and amend it.

States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

The National Popular Vote bill is 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

It requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.

 

Voters in the biggest cities in the US have been almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

59,849,899 people live in the 100 biggest cities.
59,492,267 people live in rural America.

16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

The population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

The rest of the U.S., in suburbs, divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

Winning counties, with wildly different population numbers, is not the basis for electoral victory

Because of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) . . .
a “ small number of Americans are the ones who really matter. “

"The reality is: Given our Electoral College and our current politics, national elections are decided in this country in a few precincts, in a few key swing states," former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson
The former secretary of DHS, Kirstjen Nielsen, echoed those comments– 3/21/18

According to Tony Fabrizio, pollster for the Trump campaign, the president’s narrow victory was due to 5 counties in 2 states (not CA or NY).

In 2012, under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), voters in just 60 counties and DC could have won in states with 270 electoral votes to elect the president in 2012 – even though they represented just 26.3% of voters.

The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).

Since 2006, the bill has passed 40 state legislative chambers in 24 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 271 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Minnesota (10), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Nevada (6).

The bill has been enacted by 16 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 196 electoral votes – 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.
When enacted by states with 270 electoral votes, it would change state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

Based on the current mix of states that have enacted the National Popular Vote compact, it could take about 25 states to reach the 270 electoral votes needed to activate the compact.

 

You do know its illegal right? States can not make a compact unless Congress approves of it..

And guess who owns the Senate?

 

The Interstate Compact on Placement of Children is one of the many interstate compacts that do not require (and never received) congressional consent.

Congressional consent is not required for the National Popular Vote compact under prevailing U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

The U.S. Constitution provides:
"No state shall, without the consent of Congress,… enter into any agreement or compact with another state…."

Although this language may seem straight forward, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, in 1893 and again in 1978, that the Compacts Clause can "not be read literally." In deciding the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the Court wrote:
"Read literally, the Compact Clause would require the States to obtain congressional approval before entering into any agreement among themselves, irrespective of form, subject, duration, or interest to the United States.

"The difficulties with such an interpretation were identified by Mr. Justice Field in his opinion for the Court in [the 1893 case] Virginia v. Tennessee. His conclusion [was] that the Clause could not be read literally [and this 1893 conclusion has been] approved in subsequent dicta."

Specifically, the Court's 1893 ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee stated:
"Looking at the clause in which the terms 'compact' or 'agreement' appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States."

The state power involved in the National Popular Vote compact is specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 the U.S. Constitution:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…."

In the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1), the Court wrote:
"The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States"

The National Popular Vote compact would not "encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" because there is simply no federal power -- much less federal supremacy -- in the area of awarding of electoral votes in the first place.

In the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the compact at issue specified that it would come into force when seven or more states enacted it. The compact was silent as to the role of Congress. The compact was submitted to Congress for its consent. After encountering fierce political opposition from various business interests concerned about the more stringent tax audits anticipated under the compact, the compacting states proceeded with the implementation of the compact without congressional consent. U.S. Steel challenged the states' action. In upholding the constitutionality of the implementation of the compact by the states without congressional consent, the U.S. Supreme Court applied the interpretation of the Compacts Clause from its 1893 holding in Virginia v. Tennessee, writing that:
"the test is whether the Compact enhances state power quaod [with regard to] the National Government."

The Court also noted that the compact did not
"authorize the member states to exercise any powers they could not exercise in its absence."

 

This all hinges on the Colorado v Baca faithless elector case which an appeals judge decided and will end up in SCOTUS.

 

You'll note he isn't interested in a discussion of the issue other than his copy/paste talking points.

 

This one is different you know that right? If one thinks it will go unnoticed and under the radar.. its preposterous

Once it hits 270 it will go to the Supreme court as gerrymandering the presidential elections

 

It is impossible to soundly argue that the NPVC does not violate Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution.

 

No I never ran in one before.

 

The 10th Circuit Court ruling does not affect the National Popular Vote law.

This decision does nothing to stop a state from appointing electors who promise to vote for the winner of the national popular vote.

The Baca decision invalidates the removal of an elector but not the states’ ability to name electors, the National Popular Vote legislation would remain enforceable.

Electors under the National Popular Vote compact would loyally vote as rubberstamps as they do with the current system.

If the political parties do their job of vetting their nominees for the position of presidential electors, faithless electors cannot not have any effect on the outcome -- under either the current system or the National Popular Vote compact.

The compact is identical to the current system in that it assumes that the political parties carefully vet the people they nominate for positions in the Electoral College. Given the amount of publicity received by the 7 faithless electors in 2016 (which was, of course, an election under the current system), you can bet that both parties will be extremely attentive in their vetting of the people they nominate for the position of presidential elector in 2020.

The presidential electors are nominated by the political parties.

Under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes, the presidential electors are the persons nominated by the political party whose presidential candidate receives the most popular votes inside each state.

Under the compact, the presidential electors are the persons nominated by the political party whose presidential candidate receives the most popular vote in all 50 states and DC become members of the Electoral College from the states that have enacted the compact.

Since the compact only goes into effect after being enacted by states having a majority of the Electoral College (270 of 53, the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC will have a majority of the presidential electors in the Electoral College and thus become President.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that congressional consent is only necessary for interstate compacts that ‘encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States [U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, 1978].’ Because the choice of method of appointing presidential Electors is an “exclusive” and “plenary” state power, there is no encroachment on federal authority.

Thus, under established compact jurisprudence, congressional consent would not be necessary for the National Popular Vote compact to become effective.

 

All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population

Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.

No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

We can limit the outsized power and influence of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.

 

It certainly would since State electors deciding their vote based on other States votes would be faithless electors not representing their State.

 

Now 48 states have winner-take-all state laws for awarding electoral votes to the statewide winner.
2 award one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.
Neither method is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

AGAIN. Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College.

The National Popular Vote bill is states with 270 electors replacing state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.
The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

In the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 and second election in 1792, the states employed a wide variety of methods for choosing presidential electors, including

● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council,

● appointment by both houses of the state legislature,
● popular election using special single-member presidential-elector districts,

● popular election using counties as presidential-elector districts,

● popular election using congressional districts,

● popular election using multi-member regional districts,

● combinations of popular election and legislative choice,

● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council combined with the state legislature, and

● statewide popular election.

States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency.

 

“The bottom line is that the electors from those states who cast their ballot for the nationwide vote winner are completely accountable (to the extent that independent agents are ever accountable to anyone) to the people of those states. The National Popular Vote states aren’t delegating their Electoral College votes to voters outside the state; they have made a policy choice about the substantive intelligible criteria (i.e., national popularity) that they want to use to make their selection of electors. There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents them from making the decision that, in the Twenty-First Century, national voter popularity is a (or perhaps the) crucial factor in worthiness for the office of the President.”
- Vikram David Amar - professor and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the UC Davis School of Law. Before becoming a professor, he clerked for Judge William A. Norris of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and for Justice Harry Blackmun at the Supreme Court of the United States.

In Gallup polls since 1944 until before the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 now shown on divisive maps as red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

In state polls of voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state's electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state's winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.

Question 1: "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?"

Question 2: "Do you think it more important that a state's electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?"

 

SCOTUS decided that. Just sayin.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

 

So ignoring using the court as the process calls for is AOK if it is a totally partisan effort. Fascinating.

 

I agree strongly with most all of that, (they should have abolished slavery too, or at least "sunsetted" it, as many of the FF suggested) but I also think everything but what I've bolded is largely irrelevant as to why Trump won in 2016

Trump won because the Dems ran a very lackluster candidate against the Last Great Hope of American bias and jingoism in America AND because the Dems thought that NOBODY would really vote for him, so most of them stayed home; while every one of said jingoists was at the polls early that fateful Tuesday. That won't happen in 2020. We have learned that overconfidence and complacency can give us insane narcissists slathered in Man Tan as President
The only way Trump will win in 2020 is if Putin AND the Ukrainians along with the Chinese, the North Koreans and the entire membership of Nerds For Trump somehow hack every voting machine in America. ( McConell is probably arranging that even as we speak, but I doubt he'll bring it off and he will have to find out if Putin's promise of a nice dacha right outside Moscow was real.)

 

LOL, Russia, Russia, Russia. Trump is polling higher than any dem candidate already.

 

What does the 2016 election have to do with what I said?

 

Opponents are free to use the court.
But the fact remains:
Article II, Section 1

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”

 

I was referring to what the OP said, which I quoted.

 

Okay, I see what you're saying. I wasn't really going for that angle but I get what you're saying.