The Coalition of the Swilling

Words can not express my disgust with this.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill is enacted in a group of states possessing 270 or more electoral votes, all of the electoral votes from those states would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). This would implement a nationwide vote for President - someething that over 70% of the public has favored, in polls, since the 1940's. At that point, the number of votes that a candidate received in a particular state would no longer be relevant. Only the national popular vote total would be relevant.

The national popular vote is, and should remain, irrelevant.

Smug talking points, per my 'weasel-speak' assessment above. If the National Popular Vote is so, well, POPULAR, then a Constitutional Amendment to CHANGE/eliminate the Electoral College shouldn't be a problem, right? But, no. That's NOT how you're choosing to do it. A constitutional amendment vote would allow ALL voters to make their choices known/HAVE THEIR VOICES HEARD, vice the State Legislatures now colluding to massage your pet project AROUND the Constitutional requirements...

...Political supporters of the Agreement have been curiously reticent to discuss the validity of the Agreement under Article I, section 10. Although some similar proposals would be invalid under section 10, the Agreement adopted in Maryland does not abuse the structure of the Electoral College, nor does it disrupt the balance of power among the states or between the states and the national government.

...which strikes me as implicitly underhanded and denying me my vote.

Sorry. You REEK of sneaky weasels.

Joreko, we have a thing called a Constitution. If you want to change it propose an amendment. This sort of an end-run is horrific.

If such a thing passes, just WATCH the votes in Chicago and St. Louis, among others, outstrip their total populations.

It's called the "tyranny of the majority," Joreko. The Founders wanted Presidents to have a broad base of support - a majority of majorities, if you will - in order not to have them beholden to a single large bloc of people such as urban dwellers or other special interest.

Populists are always blathering about the little guy's rights, until they get in the way of Progress. I posted my Friday FO too early, I think.

Not that I like this plan, but I don't see anything unconstitutional about it at all. In fact, it appears to be very much in the spirit of the electoral process set up by the Constitution.

When you vote on that Tuesday in November, you do not vote for a president, you vote for electors. Electors by design may vote for whomever they wish unless state law says otherwise. This is precisely so that states can protet their own status and influence in the government.

If the state feels that voting for a winner is in its best interests, then it can do so.

Like I said, I don't much like the plan, the collusion is a bit much and would tend towards corruption, but I don't think there is anything unconstitutinal about it. Article II, §1, ¶2 says,

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof my direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

So if the state wishes to appoint its electors based on the popular vote, so be it. They have that authority.

Actually, truth be told, I don't believe states are required constitutionally to even allow the people of the state to vote. The legislature may choose its electors directly without a statewide election. This might in fact be a sticking point constitutionally for this scheme. If one or more states decides not to have a statewide vote, how would New Jersey decide what the national popular vote was?

The only reference I can see in the Constitution for allowing a popular vote is Amendment XXIV (that's 24th to those of you in Florida). It says that:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."

So, they can't require a poll tax, but this language would not appear to say that the legislature is not allowed to choose directly without a statewide vote.

Amendment XII describes the role of the electors but not how they are chosen.

Amendment XVII requires Senators to be chosen by statewide election, but no mention is made of the Electors for President and Vice President.

So,yeah, I don't see any legal problem with this really unwise scheme.

Skyler, just because something is "legal" doesn't mean it is ethical or moral.....or even "legal".

The ethical part of this is that there is an EXISTING process by which this process can be changed. At least two people have made that specific point in this thread.

But the supporters of this "Agreement" are choosing to IGNORE the existing process, and bypass the LETTER of the letter of the electoral process. That's an endrun around the law, which I consider to be morally and ethically rephrehensible.

And "illegal" since it bypasses the existing Constitution. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't people supposed to follow existing law, as written, until changed? I recall judges making key decisions based on that point. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, just one of those voters whom you think can be disenfranschised for the hell of it. You might try reading some of the STATE consitutitions, or even State LAW, on the subject.

Frankly, your comments reek of weasel wording as well, Skyler.

Jeff, you miss the point. There is no amendment needed. It's already constitutional.

I'm not saying that I like it, I'm only saying that it's already legal and in line with the intent of the electoral college. I'm sorry you don't like that, but that's the truth.

Let's go even further. You have no federal constitutional right to vote for president at all. Not one bit. Not even close. The federal government gives the power to choose the president to the states. This is because the states are supposed to have some semblance of power in our federal government.

It is the people of the states that have demanded that the state government allow the people of the state to participate by voting for president.

So, if you want to change the process the correct method is through the state legislature, which they are doing.

You can call me a weasel all you want, but it doesn't make me incorrect. I think an appropriate return taunt would be to point out that your position is ignorant and highlights that you were not well educated in your youth.

I agree that it's an unwise plan, but if you think it ignores the letter or the spirit of the Constitution, you need to reread that document. Show me where it says that you have a Constitutional right to vote for president. You won't find it.

No, I don't miss the point, Skyler. Yes, legislatures can do an end around the US Constitution. Said document having been written on the concept that everyone is supposed to use it as the base line for all laws in this country.

Else why do we have all these lawyers working on cases to go before the Supreme Court to debate/decide their "constitutionality"? Why not just write a law that says "Screw the Constitution!!"

Granted, I'm not a lawyer (for which I often thank God.....and I'm agnostic), but logic is best described as being the right way to get the wrong answer.

Check your premises, Skyler. Me, I lean towards the concept that the Constitution of the United States is NOT a "living document".....but that it has a process by which it can changed to meet new situations.

Therefore, anything that bypasses that change process is inherently "illegal", i.e., unconstitutional.

Or would saying "unconstitutional" be politically incorrect?

Jeff, you're still missing the point.

This is precisely in line with the Constitution. It is not a "screw the Constitution" issue. The Constitution gives the STATES the power to select the president. It's up to the STATES to decide how to do so. If your State chooses to allow you to vote, then good for you and good for your State (and it is true that every State has chosen to allow a vote by the people to choose the Electors, but that is not a Constitutional issue). But if your State chooses to select its electors by rolling dice or by cow pie bingo, then that's perfectly legitimate too from a federal Constitutional perspective.

This is not a "living document" issue. This is very much exactly as the document is written and as it is intended.

If you want to stop this method of selecting the Electors, then YOU would be the one obliged to come up with a Constitutional Amendment.

Skyler, the flaw in your logic is that you assume that the letter and spirit of the US Constitution are followed by the states supporting this "Agreement". That's debatable, unless the intent of the Founding Fathers was to permit states to form "mega states" in order to control the Electoral College....without going through a Constitutional Amendment for that purpose.

Tell me, please, how this is "constitutional"?

It's constitutional because that is exactly what the intent of the Electoral College is for. It allows the States to select its Electors according to its own purposes. In this case the state would, unwisely I say, choose to select its Electors based on whom it thought should win. The benefits of being a State that supported the winning President are obvious. Whether a President would recognize a state that supported him in this manner with political favors is not for you or me to decide, it is up to the state government to decide.

The Constitution does not say that the State must choose its Electors based only on reasons that the federal government thinks are important. It leaves the reasons for the selection of Electors entirely up to the States.

This scheme is entirely within the scope of exactly the type of state power that the Constitution was designed to protect.

I don't like the idea of the collusion, but there you have it.

Note that it's not as bad as you make it out to be, as bad as it is. It does not give the states the power to control who is president directly. It is only going by popular vote. It could easily be defeated by other states by simply refusing to provide an official count of the popular vote. It also does not make these states the determining power. Every single one of these states could vote 100% for the other candidate, but if the popular vote goes to another party, then these states, by this agreement, would not be getting who they wanted.

But that's up to the states to decide, not you or me. If you don't like the idea, don't vote for it in your state constitutional amendment, or through other representatives that have the power to change the statewide election process. As a Texas citizen, I have no influence on how New Jersey chooses its Electors, nor should I. It's up to the people of New Jersey. I think they have spoken.

It would effectively turn a Republic into a populist Democracy, and leave the smaller states out in the cold.

Pass.