Fairly certain this would be unconstitutional. In addition, there would be no reason now to go to the polls at all in Colorado. ---Idiot Liberals do not understand that we live in The United States, not the United Peoples. --If the shoe were on the other foot then they would be declaring the electoral college to be a great aspect of our republic.
I have no problem with the term, but its usage is erroneous. So big deal, we have a Republic ruled by a constitution, which may be amended. Righties have this notion that it's to mean we can't have direct voting of the executive because Madison said something sometime about the legislative making decision for the people. https://legaldictionary.net/constitutional-republic/
Ohhh so if the republican wins the national popular vote, but loses in Colorado the Republican gets all over Colorado's votes. How sweet would it be for that Republican to end up with with 271 EC votes?
There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency. Of COURSE there would be a reason to go to the polls in every state. Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter equally in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most votes from all 50 states and DC would win. Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes” “ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.” In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted. "The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.” Eight former national chairs of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have endorsed the bill In 2017, Saul Anuzis and Michael Steele, the former chairmen of the Michigan and national Republican parties, wrote that the National Popular Vote bill was “an idea whose time has come”. The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10). In 2016 the Arizona House of Representatives passed the bill 40-16-4. Two-thirds of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats in the Arizona House of Representatives sponsored the bill. In January 2016, two-thirds of the Arizona Senate sponsored the bill. In 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the bill by a 28–18 margin. In 2009, the Arkansas House of Representatives passed the bill
Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1 “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive." Because each state has independent power to award its electoral votes in the manner it sees fit, it is difficult to see what "adverse effect" might be claimed by one state from the decision of another state to award its electoral votes in a particular way. It is especially unclear what adverse "political" effect might be claimed, given that the National Popular Vote compact would treat votes cast in all 50 states and the District of Columbia equally. A vote cast in a compacting state is, in every way, equal to a vote cast in a non-compacting state. The National Popular Vote compact does not confer any advantage on states belonging to the compact as compared to non-compacting states. A vote cast in a compacting state would be, in every way, equal to a vote cast in a non-compacting state. The National Popular Vote compact certainly would not reduce the voice of voters in non-compacting states relative to the voice of voters in member states. [The] difference between a democracy and a republic [is] the delegation of the government, the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest." In a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents." – Madison Being a constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country. Guaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes (as the National Popular Vote bill would) would not make us a pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.
Of COURSE the compact is NOT trying to manipulate the Electoral College out of existence. The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538. All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.
The state power involved in the National Popular Vote compact is specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 the U.S. Constitution: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…." In the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1), the Court wrote: "The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States" The National Popular Vote compact would not "encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" because there is simply no federal power -- much less federal supremacy -- in the area of awarding of electoral votes in the first place.
Anyone who supports the current presidential election system, believing it is what the Founders intended and that it is in the Constitution, is mistaken. The current presidential election system does not function, at all, the way that the Founders thought that it would. Supporters of National Popular Vote find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse the current electoral system where 38+ states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant. 10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant now. The Founders created the Electoral College, but 48 states eventually enacted state winner-take-all laws. Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1 “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive." Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election. In 1789, in the nation's first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes. The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1880s after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.. The Founders had been dead for decades The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes. States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now, 38 states, of all sizes, and their voters, because they vote predictably, are politically irrelevant in presidential elections. The National Popular Vote bill is 64% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency in 2020 to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. The procedure would not be changed. Constitutionally, the number of electors in each state is equal to the number of members of Congress to which the state is entitled,while the 23rd Amendment grants the District of Columbia the same number of electors as the least populous state, currently three. No Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. Each political party in each state nominates a slate of candidates for the position of presidential elector. This is most commonly done at the party’s congressional-district conventions and the party’s state convention during the summer or early fall. It is sometimes done in a primary. Typically, each political party chair certifies to the state’s chief election official the names of the party’s candidate for President and Vice President and the names of the party’s candidates for presidential elector. Under the “short presidential ballot” (now used in all states), the names of the party’s nominee for President and Vice President appear on the ballot. When a voter casts a vote for a party’s presidential and vice-presidential slate on Election Day (the Tuesday after the first Monday in November), that vote is deemed to be a vote for all of that party’s candidates for presidential elector. Under the “winner-take-all” rule used in 48 states, the presidential-elector candidates who receive the most popular votes statewide are elected. In Maine and Nebraska, the candidate for the position of presidential elector who receives the most popular votes in each congressional district is elected (with the two remaining electors being based on the statewide popular vote). In states enacting the National Popular Vote bill the presidential-elector candidates who receive the most national popular votes would be elected Each state’s winning presidential electors travel to their State Capitol on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December to cast their votes for President and Vice President.
The electors are and will be dedicated party activist supporters of the winning party’s candidate who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges. There have been 24,067 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 31 have been cast in a deviant way, for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party (one clear faithless elector, 29 grand-standing votes, and one accidental vote). 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. States have enacted and can enact laws that guarantee the votes of their presidential electors In Arizona, HB2302 went into effect in August 2017. Electors must cast their vote for candidate and vice president candidate who jointly received the highest number of votes in the state. If the elector refuses to cast that vote, they will no longer be eligible to hold their position as an elector. April 10, 2018 - A federal appeals court judge has ruled that Colorado’s presidential electors must vote for the winner of the state’s popular vote Pennsylvania law empowers each party’s presidential candidate to nominate all elector candidates directly. The presidential nominee is, after all, the person whose name actually appears on the ballot on Election Day and who has the greatest immediate interest in faithful voting by presidential electors. North Carolina law declares vacant the position of any contrary-voting elector, voids that elector’s vote, and empowers the state’s remaining electors to replace the contrary-voting elector immediately with an elector loyal to the party’s nominee. The Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act has a state-administered pledge of faithfulness. Any attempt by a presidential elector to cast a vote in violation of that pledge effectively constitutes resignation from the office of elector. The Act provides a mechanism for immediately filling a vacancy created for that reason (or any other reason). The National Popular Vote organization has endorsed this proposed uniform law. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).