- 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 2:28 pm to Techdave
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:28 pm to Techdave
quote:
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.
How?
This would make votes more equal nationally.
Also, after looking it up, the early model in most states was for state legislatures, not popular votes, to determine the electors.
0
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
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.
What is the specific due process or equal protection violation, though? A voter is voting as a citizen of his/her respective state, under the State's laws, rules/regulations/etc. Assuming those laws are followed equally and that the candidate who receives the most votes wins the election then equal protection and due process appear to be satisfied.
Are you saying the Constitution allows for some sort of national vote? If not, then how could there be a due process or equal protection violation on the basis you are claiming?
It should be easy to see how this compact violates both due process and equal protection.
Due process because the Candidate who wins the State's vote does not actually win the state's vote and equal protection because the states that have joined the compact all have different sets of rules surrounding the election - a clear violation of equal protection.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:33 pm to Don Quixote
quote:
they seem to forget that Trump won the popular vote in the most recent election
Weren't they trolling for "lost" ballots in states like California months after the election to try and prove that really wasn't the case?
That's what tells me is all this might possibly do is massively increase the amount of clusterfrickery in federal elections.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:34 pm to JimEverett
quote:
What is the specific due process or equal protection violation, though?
I didn't say it violated them. I said it was a way to get around those rules.
Removing the selection of electors from democratic means insulates it from these sorts of things. States can emulate systems that would require such things, for sure, but that doesn't do much other than make people feel like they're directly part of the process.
quote:
Are you saying the Constitution allows for some sort of national vote?
It creates an avenue where states can choose to rely on a national tally.
quote:
Due process because the Candidate who wins the State's vote does not actually win the state's vote
If the state chooses to rely on the national tally, then who wins the state tally has no merit or value.
You're just thinking about it within the lens of the emulation of a national vote that we've relied on our lives, and not in the abstract of analyzing theoretical alternatives.
4/20 was yesterday, so I'm sure you can get some weed on sale today, like the day after Easter.
quote:
because the states that have joined the compact all have different sets of rules surrounding the election - a clear violation of equal protection.
This would vicariously argue that our current system would also have the same effect. Tallying the votes at the state or national levels changes nothing in your criticism here.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:35 pm to RemouladeSawce
That’s a good find and likely dispositive on the issue.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:36 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Weren't they trolling for "lost" ballots in states like California months after the election to try and prove that really wasn't the case?
That's what tells me is all this might possibly do is massively increase the amount of clusterfrickery in federal elections.
Well this system would make 2024 unlikely, considering the primary reason Kamala 2024 underperformed Biden 2020 was due to enthusiasm in DEM strongholds. Almost 4M of the vote difference is from just 11 heavily DEM states (CA, NY, NJ, WA, MA, OR, IL, MN, MD, CO).
And 2024 was the perfect storm against the DEMs. Hoping to have that repeat is foolish, IMHO
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Probably not, but that's due to selfish reasons. There are more DEM/Leftist voters than non-DEM/leftist voters in the US.
I don't care "why".
quote:
If you're a bluish-purple state like VA, it should seem pretty obvious.
Has nothing to do with the question.
I simply want to know if YOU think a state should allocate their votes in this way. We have 250 years of history and doing by and large the same way (which as worked well). What possible reason would a state have to do things this way, other than to serve selfish interests? What does it say to the citizens of a state when you tell them other states vote will have a larger impact on their vote than their own state?
We all know this is a clever end-around to basically make the EC null and void while still keeping "intact". wink wink.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:A compact which is a compact is speculative?
This being an actual "compact" that would have that provision apply is speculative
That is so interesting.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Or a coin flip
Or what Punxsutawney Phil did that week
Or if the letters on the first page of the NYT on election day has even/odds words
Or have the Governor unilaterally assign them
...or based on the results of a fraudulent election.
Your other examples are good as well...but I can't tell if you are endorsing it or not.
There's an argument (sounds like boosie is making it) that states can do whatever they want within the boundaries of their own state constitution. As such, there's nothing that would be improper.
This post was edited on 4/21/26 at 2:46 pm
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:49 pm to tommy2tone1999
quote:
DC: MD, NJ. IL, HI, MA, CA, VT, CT, CO, DE, NM, OR, VA, and ME.
None of those states seemed willing to give DJT their electoral college votes in 2024 when he won the popular vote.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:52 pm to moneyg
quote:
There's an argument (sounds like boosie is making it) that states can do whatever they want within the boundaries of their own state constitution. As such, there's nothing that would be improper.
The language in the Constitution is pretty broad in leaving it up to the States in how to allot the EC votes.
But that other poster found good language prohibiting states from entering into agreements with one another without Congressional authority to do so. I think that likely kills this compact by the plain language of the Constitution.
The Founders were impressive, man.
This post was edited on 4/21/26 at 3:07 pm
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:53 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
But that other poster found good language prohibiting states from entering into agreements with one another without Congressional authority to do so.
Once they got to the theoretical finish line, they could just amend the laws of the states without this "compact" having any effect.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:53 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:Indeed
The Founders were impressive, man.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I didn't say it violated them. I said it was a way to get around those rules.
That is a different argument then one I was trying to addess. I am not arguing how things should be. I mean it is only an run around if the idea is that the U.S. should be in charge of presidential elections as opposed to the states. That doesn't exist. It might be of theoretical value though.
quote:
If the state chooses to rely on the national tally, then who wins the state tally has no merit or value.
Which is a due process violation. I voted in a state election. The candidate I voted for, or the slate of electors I voted for, was not the candidate that the State chose as winner. This is a very clear violation of due process. Sure, the state legislator has wide latitude in determing how its elctors are awarded, but once a popular vote method is chosen certain rules apply - like due process. A state cannot violate that.
Likewise, when a State conditions its electoral slate winner y pooling its results with States that have very different election rules and laws then that is fraught with equal protection issues. A basic tenet of equal protection law is the State cannot treat voters differently. Basing winners of your electoral slate on the basis of California voters who have very different standards then voters in Connecticut and voters in NY, and voters in . . . . seems an obvious equal protection violation.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Nah. That would get its butt kicked by Scotus. Had that been their intention, they would already be allotting EC votes that way. Perhaps it was careless for them not to do that, but that stone has been cast.
Once they got to the theoretical finish line, they could just amend the laws of the states without this "compact" having any effect.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:56 pm to tommy2tone1999
So in the future they can just skip the election process and appoint whomever they want as king or queen ?
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:57 pm to JimEverett
quote:
Which is a due process violation.
Only if the state bases its EC vote only on the state tally
quote:
The candidate I voted for, or the slate of electors I voted for, was not the candidate that the State chose as winner.
The State chose the winner of the national tally as the winner, though.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:58 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Had that been their intention, they would already be allotting EC votes that way.
It's just an incentive
Again, if they pass separate laws in each state giving the tally to the national victor, the legality of this "compact" is irrelevant. It can be illegal, sure, but the applicable law is something else entirely, at that point.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:59 pm to JimEverett
quote:Indeed.
seems an obvious equal protection violation
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Intent is never irrelevant, unless it's John Roberts determining what a tax is.
Again, if they pass separate laws in each state giving the tally to the national victor, the legality of this "compact" is irrelevant.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News