- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: National Popular Vote Interstate Pact - Dems trying to circumvent the Constitution
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:17 pm to Tigerdew
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:17 pm to Tigerdew
quote:
This is pretty much textbook disenfranchisement is it not?
This will backfire on them fiercely. When 2028 rolls around the DNC will be so thoroughly disgraced that there is no chance they will win the popular vote. And these very same people will be screaming the loudest about how unfair it is.
0
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:17 pm to JimEverett
quote:
The Constitution also guarantees due process and equal protection. Plus, it also provides that the President is elected via the Electoral College not via popular vote, which this is an end run around.
The EC is a run around for due process and equal protection.
This is just a way to take advantage of that status.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:18 pm to OchoDedos
quote:
Pacts don't circumvent the Constitution
The Pact itself wouldn’t do anything. It would be the individual state laws allocating their EV’s that way.
This post was edited on 4/21/26 at 2:20 pm
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:20 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:It does. But it also says compacts require Congressional approval
Doesn't the Constitution leave it to each stage to determine how to award its electoral votes?
quote:Then there's other issues like how states are supposed to act in their "sovereign capacity", which doesn't include binding electors to national results
Article I, Section 10, Clause 3: 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 big one is the Supreme Court is the "arbiter of Constitutional structure". They can simply shoot something down if they feel it's an intentional circumventing of the Constitution. It would be a repeat of McCullough v Maryland that states cannot use their legal powers to undermine federal systems
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:20 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
The Pact itself wouldn’t do anything. It would be the individual state laws allocating their EV’s that way.
Exactly. It's not really a compact in the way the term is used. The "compact" aspect is the conditional status of the system more than any sort of agreement among the states.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:20 pm to tommy2tone1999
quote:
National Popular Vote Interstate Pact - Dems trying to circumvent the Constitution
Isn't this indirect voter suppression? If you know that your state will award state electoral college votes to the national popular vote, would that make you feel like your vote doesn't matter in that state?
Genuinely curious how that plays out.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:20 pm to tommy2tone1999
If the collective states can obliterate the votes of the people of an individual state, what is the point of having sovereign states?
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
It won’t matter much, look at the state map of who joined the movement. They can’t get to 270
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
How is the electoral college an end run around due process and equal protection?
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:21 pm to Techdave
quote:
Isn't this indirect voter suppression?
There is no Constitutional requirement that an election be held to determine EC electors
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:21 pm to NC_Tigah
For the record I completely disagree with what the states are doing with the National Popular Vote Interstate Pact, but the Constitution does allow the states to determine how the electoral are chosen.
Article II. Section 1. clause 2 says: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may 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."
I'm not saying there isn't a way to challenge this since it's basing it on votes of other states, but it's definitely going to be a battle.
Article II. Section 1. clause 2 says: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may 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."
I'm not saying there isn't a way to challenge this since it's basing it on votes of other states, but it's definitely going to be a battle.
This post was edited on 4/21/26 at 2:23 pm
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:22 pm to JimEverett
quote:
How is the electoral college an end run around due process and equal protection?
The EC determines the President, not voters directly.
EC allocation gives disproportionate weight of votes to different states, also. There is nothing equal about the value of votes in our EC system. A vote in Wyoming is worth a lot more than a vote in California.
And the Constitution specifically avoids requiring any specific process.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Or a coin flip
Or to the candidate that gets the least votes. That would make campaigns interesting. "If you want me to be your next President, DON'T VOTE FOR ME!!!!'
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:25 pm to tommy2tone1999
they seem to forget that Trump won the popular vote in the most recent election
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:25 pm to Zach
quote:
Or to the candidate that gets the least votes. That would make campaigns interesting. "If you want me to be your next President, DON'T VOTE FOR ME!!!!'
That's NBA logic to combat tanking
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Exactly. It's not really a compact in the way the term is used. The "compact" aspect is the conditional status of the system more than any sort of agreement among the states.
Simple question... do YOU think this is a "good" thing?
Assuming some legal justifications could be made for it, do YOU think it's a good thing? Would you try to have your states electoral votes allocated in this way if you had control of them?
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Isn't this indirect voter suppression?
There is no Constitutional requirement that an election be held to determine EC electors
I don't think what you just said proves in any way this wouldn't be suppression.
I didn't ask about requirements to determine EC electors. I'm talking about the suppression thing that Dems like to bitch about as to why we can't require ID to vote. It would "suppress" the vote.
Do they not give a shite about suppression in this case?
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:27 pm to deuceiswild
quote:
do YOU think this is a "good" thing?
Probably not, but that's due to selfish reasons. There are more DEM/Leftist voters than non-DEM/leftist voters in the US.
quote:
Would you try to have your states electoral votes allocated in this way if you had control of them?
If you're a bluish-purple state like VA, it should seem pretty obvious.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:27 pm to tommy2tone1999
Why would the populace of a state throw away it's voting rights?
This post was edited on 4/21/26 at 2:34 pm
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:27 pm to Zach
Trump should announce that he will be running for vice president under JD Vance and that when they win Vance is going to immediately resign.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News