Maine joins unConstitutional National Popular Vote states

how is this different than electors challenging an election that was somehow ilegal?

Winner take all laws are also a corruption of the Electoral College.

quote:

---

Winner take all laws are also a corruption of the Electoral College.

---

It certainly violates the original intent, but I don't know if it violates the Constitution because states have a lot of leeway in how they appoint their electors.

quote:

---

SlowFlowPro

---

quote:

---

I don't know

---

Bookmarked!

quote:

---

It's been 20 years since the GOP has won the popular vote, and that required a war-time incumbent to do it.

---

In a typical year, this margin is almost entirely contained in California, New York, and Illinois.

Which only underscores the intent and purpose of the Electoral College system.

quote:

---

Which means the voter roles need corrected and purged of non voters. Dead people, non citizens, retention of voters who no longer live in areas. Plus requiring ID’s to vote is a huge necessity

---

What does this have to do with the Democratic party being decidedly more popular and supported than the GOP over the past 3 decades?

The GOP has always has national appeal issues but it's clearly the minority party today.

Our presidential election process was purposely designed not to elect any candidate by a national popular vote. Instead, it is a system wherein the popular vote of each state stands alone and is INDEPENDENT of the other states. Win the popular votes of enough states and you win the presidency.. it’s unconstitutional because it disenfranchises the voters of the state and robs them of their voice in the presidential election. You can’t have states doing an end run around the constitution and creating an electoral process that is at odds with the process being followed by other states.

quote:

---

Our presidential election process was purposely designed not to elect any candidate by a national popular vote.

---

It was also designed to let states decide how the elections are run and how to mandate action by the electors.

quote:

---

it’s unconstitutional

---

Possibly

quote:

---

because it disenfranchises the voters of the state and robs them of their voice in the presidential election

---

I doubt for this reason, though.

quote:

---

You can’t have states doing an end run around the constitution and creating an electoral process that is at odds with the process being followed by other states.

---

You do realize there is not uniformity in how states apportion electors, right?

You well know that the overall popular vote is irrelevant. If you want NYC, LA, and Houston to control this country than you really are drunk from the party cool aid.

While I think this is an absolutely horrible idea that spits in the face of the intent of how a President is elected I don't see how it is unconstitutional. A state legislature could decide to assign their electoral votes to a candidate based on picking a name out of a hat and it would be constitutional.

quote:

---

Article II Section 1 Clause 2 "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct (emphasis added), 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.

---

The only argument I can see against it is the Interstate Compact Clause which says that Congress must approve any Interstate Compacts. However, which clause takes priority a State's absolute authority to determine how it's electors are selected or the interstate compact clause? I think the State's power wins out, as it should, if it comes to a constitutional question but thankfully that should never happen as I don't see states with 270+ votes passing this.