- Dec 7, 2012
- Reaction score
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.
Having pointed out all that, on the more basic level your scenario just underscores my first criticism in post 156, that the EC artificially divides us into so-called "red states" and "blue states", a division which is not only destructive but ENTIRELY unnecessary. James Madison, himself one of the architects of the EC, could see it coming when WTA started snowballing in his own time, and wanted a Constitutional Amendment BANNING the practice. But we never did that.