re: Dems trying to circumvent the Electoral College; would it be legal?

I agree with you, legality has never stopped the dems.

But, do you think either side would give up without a fight - that fight being taking it to the supreme court?

What do you think the arguments of each side would be? And what would the loosing side do? Make the protests at Trump's inauguration look small? Riots? Complete anarchy?

Come join the discussion.

No, it's an underhanded attempt to void the Constitution. Any federal judge outside of the 9th Circuit would see right through this, and strike it down with haste.

No! As part of the condition for joining the union each state accepted they would be governed under the provisions of the existing Consitution. That U. S. Consitution, specifically, established the Electoral College. Early on the Founding Fathers understood in order to prevent the densely populated states from dominating control of the government a mechanism was needed to give the sparsely populated some leverage in elections.

Bottom line......the effort to do away with the Electoral College is nothing but an effort to concentrate power in densely populated and traditional democrat states like New York and California.

So those states that have moved to diconnect from the Electoral College is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

You want to change the U. S. Constitution? Then convene a Constitutional Convention of States (COS) and vote en masse to change it. It's all or nothing.

quote:

---

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

---

The key question will be the definition of the highlighted terms.

Traditionally, an enforceable agreement requires “consideration.” A simple promise to do something (without receiving something else in return) does not generally meet that requirement. A gtatuitous statement that “I promise to go to Houston Saturday, if everyone else goes too” is generally not a binding agreement.

I support the EC and think that this movement is bad policy, but I have trouble seeing it as being an “agreement” and thus question whether this legislation would be found to be unconstitutional under any Strict Construction analysis.

Most of the arguments against it seem to arise from subjective Originalism, rather than objective Strict Construction. This matter will certainly draw a line on SCOTUS between those two schools of constitutional interpretation.

No, the part people are missing is that State's can choose their electors any way they want. Today, all of the States choose their electors by a vote of the people, but they could just as easily have the legislature hand pick the Electors, or the legislature can give the governor the power to hand pick the Electors.

In the current instance, the legislatures of the States are saying they will pick the Electors based upon the national popular vote. This is not circumventing the Electoral College, this is just changing the way an individual state picks its Electors.

The problem I have is this: what exactly would the citizens of those States be voting on in a Presidential Election? Let's say enough states to equal 270 Electoral votes adopt this statute. On election day, the citizens of those States need to vote, but what are they voting on? They are not picking the Electors for their own state, they are just voicing an opinion on who they hope wins the Presidential election, which isn't really an election at all...

Maybe they would be provisionally picking their Electors. So a vote for the Democrat Candidate is a vote for the Democrat electors, UNLESS the Republican candidate wins the National Popular vote in which case the legislature will select the Republican Electors....

I guess I agree with the experts, that this is probably legal but would certainly be subject to legal challenges.