The interstate compact is probably unconstitutional and will fall apart anyway the second a State is forced to give all their EV's to a candidate the people in it didn't vote for.
Well, I know that's what you hope for...
It's what I interpret as constitutional, and what I expect from a Dem State if they are forced to give their EV's to a Republican.
That's no different from what already happens now, when voters who make up "50% minus one" --- or even more than 50%, see my last post --- see all their votes immediately tossed into the shredder by the corrupt WTA system. Trust me, voters are already used to that.
It would be VERY different from what happens now, because it would be a reaction after say a State like NY after signing the compact overwhelmingly votes for a Dem, but the Republican wins the popular vote. You really think the Dem politicians in the State won't immediately revoke the law in question?
Of course.
That's part of the consideration before the Compact is entered into, isn't it. You seriously think states that sign on don't know that's a possibility??
Again -- in the present severely broken system each state is ALREADY disenfranchising up to half, or even more than half, of its own voters by casting their entire EVs for somebody those voters didn't want. 55% of Utahans had to watch ALL their state's EVs go to Rump, a candidate they rejected. So let's not act like tossing votes into the crapper is a new thing.
Then the solution is to give 2 EV's to the overall State winner and then break down the rest by Congressional district.
Congressional Districts are, and have been since the beginning, notoriously gerrymandered. They're not a realistic representation of anything except who holds the consolidated power in that state and how they manipulate their state into getting entrenched.
More representative, if the antiquated EV "must" be used, would be allocation proportional to the vote. For instance in my state while nobody won the popular vote Rump won a plurality with Clinton a couple of points behind, so out of 15 state EVs either 8 could go to Rump and 7 to Clinton, or if the showing was over a certain threshold, 7 to Rump, 6 to Clinton, one each to Johnson and Stein. Then you'd at least be closer to how the state ACTUALLY voted.
Awarding votes to Congressional Districts doesn't reflect the Constitution at all. COTUS says
states send electors, not districts. It's an attempt to even-out the effect but it falls far short of that goal, especially in more populated states.
That's the way politics work. Gerrymandering is one of those things only bad when the other side does it.
Uh nnnnnnno. It's the equivalent of --- I think you're a baseball guy --- being the owner of an MLB team while simultaneously being the Commissioner of Baseball. While your office can't declare "my team wins all its games", you can determine what teams get to draft who in which order, what the season schedule is, what the new rules are, any disputes that come up etc, so you're stacking the deck to use a mixed metaphor.
The fact remains the COTUS says nothing about districts determining who the state's electors are. While that doesn't mean they can't do it, it does mean it's off the point of how Electors are chosen and for the corruptive reasons I just laid out, not at all reflective of how the STATE voted.
And just to develop that last, "how the state voted" is also not prescribed by the COTUS as "
the" method for choosing Electors either but it's how the several states have legislated that they will choose them, per Article 2, "in such Manner as the Legislature therof may direct". And entering the Compact would, again, also be a "Manner the Legislature thereof may direct".
That may end up tossing the votes of much or even most of the state.
But that's already happening now. Neither is a positive thing but let's not pretend it's something new. What we've done here is just made the argument for national popular vote.
