So about that Interstate Electoral Vote Compact....

[Marener]

More banal useless retorts.

Ignoring points as usually do to harp on rehashed bullshit.

It’s not rehashed. You’re just ignoring the points.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Except it basically eliminates a person's vote, and that doesn't provide a republican form of government.

Then you have equal protection under the law to worry about.

It's an end run around the EC, nothing more or less.

So...did you not read what I posted?

It would be one hundred percent legal for a state to simply have NO popular vote for president, and have the legislature or the governor award electors. Again: the Constitution gives state legislatures near carte blanche on HOW electors are chosen.

 

[martybegan]

So...did you not read what I posted?

It would be one hundred percent legal for a state to simply have NO popular vote for president, and have the legislature or the governor award electors. Again: the Constitution gives state legislatures near carte blanche on HOW electors are chosen.

That denies a Republican form of government.

near carte blanche, not cart blanche.

 

[marvin martian]

So now that Republicans have shown they can still win the popular vote, now many States that signed up for this will be removing the laws from the books?

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

They just can't do the work to amend the Constitution, they have to try this end run. And it's on dubious constitutional grounds anyway.

Trump's DOJ needs to sue these states and make them enforce the agreement.

 

[martybegan]

Trump's DOJ needs to sue these states and make them enforce the agreement.

Actually the agreement, as written, doesn't come into force until enough States to total 271 EV's agree to it.

So right now it's not in effect.

 

[Marener]

That denies a Republican form of government.

That has nothing to do with the electoral college, nor is it justiciable.

 

[martybegan]

That has nothing to do with the electoral college, nor is it justiciable.

Oooh a new word for you

Twatwaddle

 

[Jarlaxle]

That denies a Republican form of government.

Yet again, did you not read what I posted? It would be perfectly legal; for states to not HAVE a presidential election, and simply award electors by a vote of the legislature. (Indeed: this was very common in the early days, though last done in 1876.)

 

[Marener]

Oooh a new word for you

Twatwaddle

Yet again, you run and hide from the point.

You clearly are just making shit up and repeating it over and over again without having any idea what you’re talking about.

 

[martybegan]

Yet again, did you not read what I posted? It would be perfectly legal; for states to not HAVE a presidential election, and simply award electors by a vote of the legislature. (Indeed: this was very common in the early days, though last done in 1876.)

I read it, I don't agree with it.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I read it, I don't agree with it.

Them you're posting nonsense.

 

[martybegan]

Them you're posting nonsense.

In your scenarios the procedures and whatever actions occur IN STATE, not based on something happening OUTSIDE the State, out of all control of the residents of the State like the Compact.

Even a left leaning court wouldn't accept it if it ever came into force.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Election 2024, with the NPCV in place.
I wonder what excuse the Dem-controlled states would give for withdrawing.

 

[hadit]

Election 2024, with the NPCV in place.
I wonder what excuse the Dem-controlled states would give for withdrawing.


View attachment 1076971

And they certainly would withdraw, running to the courts to pull out retroactively.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And they certainly would withdraw, running to the courts to pull out retroactively.

Yep.
Because they only care about electing Democrats.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yet again, did you not read what I posted? It would be perfectly legal; for states to not HAVE a presidential election, and simply award electors by a vote of the legislature. (Indeed: this was very common in the early days, though last done in 1876.)

that was still republican because we elect our legislature. If the state allows a vote they have to follow that vote.

 

[Scoutster]

Actually the agreement, as written, doesn't come into force until enough States to total 271 EV's agree to it.

So right now it's not in effect.

The whole point why Dems put that clause in proves they are corrupt. It’s a partisan joke grab at power. If ever it went into affect, and a Republican won the popular vote they would change it immediately. They would not give him/her the electoral votes from their blue states come on.

 

[hadit]

The whole point why Dems put that clause in proves they are corrupt. It’s a partisan joke grab at power. If ever it went into affect, and a Republican won the popular vote they would change it immediately. They would not give him/her the electoral votes from their blue states come on.

In all seriousness, could you see California democrats being forced to award all of their EC votes to TRUMP! this last election? They would have backed out of the agreement so fast your head would spin.