- Apr 5, 2010
- Reaction score
The Electoral College ain't going anywhere. A unanimous vote of the states to eliminate it ain't gonna happen.
You don't need a unanimous vote... You need 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4 of the states.
Or just getting enough states to sign on to the Interstate Compact.
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.
States ALREADY give all their EVs to a candidate its voters didn't vote for. As I just noted above.
For example in 2016 exactly that happened in:
- New Mexico
- North Carolina
- Wisconsin*Maine and Nebraska partially split EVs by district; neither Maine district elected a non-majority candidate but the state as a whole, did, while NE-2 awarded its EV to a candidate the voters did not selectThat's the second point addressed upstairs in post 156. This is also what's behind the OP's call for runoffs and/or ranked choice voting.
As far as the Compact being "unConstitutional" we all know by now that the COTUS Article 2 declares that states shall choose their electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" --- the Compact would simply be the Manner they direct. That Article was strongly used as basis last year when SCOTUS (unanimously) upheld state so-called "faithless elector" laws, despite such laws running contrary to the original spirit of the EC (again see post 156).
CORRECTION: I forgot another state here -- Nevada.
So the more complete list of states where the EV winner could not win 50% of the state would look like:
- Nebraska 2nd district
- New Mexico
- North Carolina
They don't need 50% to win, they need a plurality.
Under the Compact even States where the Majority voted for Candidate X, Candidate Y would "win" based on votes OUTSIDE the State.
Outside AND inside. See previous post.
AGAIN, the Constitution doesn't require that states hold a vote AT ALL. They can assign Electors however they want. If Pennsylconsin decides it will throw darts at board and then consult a numerologist, then that's their system.
They are also guaranteed a republican form of government, and darts on a board wouldn't fit that.
Just like allowing people outside your State to decide a vote inside your State.
Again, I invited anyone to show us where the Constitution specifically codifies that.
I'm not aware of such a clause, if there is we have yet to see it.
I stated the two reasons, republican form of government, and equal protection. you can accept or reject those, but you can't say I haven't shown you.
How about you show me where abortion is mentioned in the constitution?
We all know where arms are mentioned, but progs like you seem to love to ignore that.
I haven't brought up "abortion", not here or anywhere else. I'm not female. This is a flailing red herring attempt.
I have however brought up arms, many times, in fact it was the impetus for my joining this site in 2012, so that red herring gets tossed back into the sea.
NEITHER is the topic here.
You stated "republican form of government" several times and you've been asked to quote where the COTUS codifies that. We have yet to see it. You mentioned "equal protection" once and never explained what you meant or how it's supposed to apply.
You went on about "where in the constitution is it", that was my response.
The issue will be decided in the courts, because no one has tried to nullify the vote of a person in a State for a State election by allowing outside voters to decide the outcome of said election.
Sooooooooo you're saying what you called "unconstitutional" cannot be shown to be so, within the Constitution. And yet you can;'t concede.
And in part two ---and we already did this several times --- persons in EVERY state have had their votes nullified for centuries, and it's entirely Constitutional --- which again, and we did this several times too --- does not require any kind of popular vote for President.
I believe it to be unconstitutional, just like I believe Roe V Wade to be, and just like I believe the Dred Scott and Plessey decisions were.
Just like I think gun laws in NYC are unconstitutional.
Not being part of the plurality is not having your vote nullified, the person with the most votes in the jurisdiction of the election won. Nullifying would be saying "X and Y" got more votes total, but Z got the most votes out of the three, so lets decide between X and Y.
Nope. Not working.
No, that's just you disagreeing and trying to pass off such as me being "wrong"