SCOTUS Win for NVPIC

SCOTUS handed down an important decision today. Odd no one here seemed to have noticed.

In a unanimous vote it was decided that states do have recourse against "faithless electors", contrary to a lower court decision. So electors are indeed bound by state laws on the matter. If a state is part of one of the group of states which participate in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, the electors will be legally bound by state law to cast their votes for the candidate who has the greatest number of popular votes nationwide.

There are now 16 states which are part of the Compact, holding a total of 196 electoral votes. The Compact will take effect if, and when, states with a total of 74 more electoral votes join. This would mean half of the total electoral votes would be part of the Compact. This would mean that the president would be elected by popular vote.


www.cnn.com...
www.nationalpopularvote.com...

a reply to: Phage
The SCOTUS has become a political body contrary to the constitution. If this compact is legal then wasn't the compact of the southern states to leave the union?

a reply to: Phage

Just what the democrats wanted and the founders did not. With this set up Big city voters will elect the next POTUS and fly over counties will just have to sh!t.

To stop this from happening was why the electoral College was put is place to begin with.

originally posted by: Phage
This would mean that the president would be elected by popular vote.

Kind of null and voids the whole states equality part. It does it by reducing the value of each state 2 senator votes.

a reply to: PhilbertDezineck

Not really the same thing.

The Constitution gives the power to elect the president to the states, through the electors. There is nothing which says how electors are to be selected or how they are to vote. Seems like it's up to each state.

But you can be assured that if the Compact ever does take effect it will make it to the SCOTUS posthaste.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Kind of null and voids the whole states equality part. It does it by reducing the value of each state 2 senator votes.

Senators have nothing to do with presidential elections.

a reply to: Phage

This SCOTUS ruling didn't get much attention, because it was merely reaffirming laws that already exist.

The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously upheld laws across the country that remove or punish rogue Electoral College delegates who refuse to cast their votes for the presidential candidate they were pledged to support.

The decision Monday was a loss for "faithless electors," who argued that under the Constitution they have discretion to decide which candidate to support.

Source: www.npr.org...

a reply to: carewemust

As I said, there was a lower court decision to the contrary. That is why the SCOTUS took the case. Had they not done so, electors could cast their votes any way they wished, with the state having no recourse against them. The existing state law (in 15 states) would have been voided.
www.nbcnews.com...

originally posted by: Phage

Senators have nothing to do with presidential elections.

Electoral College consists of 538 electors and is the total number of representatives in Congress. 100 are for the two senators in each state and the other 438 are based on population...the House.

Those 2 votes per state actually increases the political influence of small states so that a state like CA can not just run away with it all with the popular vote.

a reply to: Xtrozero

It would take a lot of those "2 votes" to change the electoral vote total in any significant way. It could happen I suppose but saying it "nulls" any vote is nonsense. If I were to vote for a Democratic Senator, it would not "null" someone's vote for a Republican.




For the record, I think the current system is a good idea. There may be an interesting ball of wax coming up because of this.

a reply to: Phage

But you can be assured that if the Compact ever does take effect it will make it to the SCOTUS posthaste.

The compost...err compact is merely a handshake at the moment, and it's been tried over and over for many years.

This ruling doesn't change anything at all, it merely confirms existing laws.

Now to mention that subverting the principles involved in guaranteeing states the right to have the ultimate say electorally by means of the voice/vote of the individuals within any said state no matter how large or small cannot and should not be adjoined to any pact. In fact if I'm not mistaken, it's actually not legally possible to form such an interstate compact as current existing federal laws prohibit it.

Long story short, your fantasy of the npvic isn't any closer to happening by this scotus ruling.

a reply to: Vector99

The Compact will take effect with 72 more electoral votes. That number has been falling, year after year.

You seem to be under the impression that I am in favor of the NPVIC.


Here's an interesting article which was written after the Appeals Court decision last year, btw.

Federal Appeals Court Torpedoes the National Popular Vote Movement Thanks to a Hillary Clinton Elector

www.redstate.com...

SCOTUS just untorpedoed it.

a reply to: Phage

You misconstrue what the ruling actually means.

From your CNN article:

The Supreme Court said Monday that states can punish members of the Electoral College who break a pledge to vote for a state's popular vote winner in presidential elections.

State's popular vote, not national.
It undermines your supposition that it supports the referred to "Compact," and actually sets up a lawsuit against the winner takes all EC votes of a lot of states.

a reply to: Phage

SCOTUS just untorpedoed it.

if torpedo's are being fired, I can only assume one thing

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

State's popular vote, not national.

Yes, if that's what the state's law requires. That is not what VPIC states require.

Perhaps you should read the decision.

a reply to: Phage

Perhaps you should read the decision.

Decision, right?

Not legally binding, right?

a reply to: Vector99

Wrong.

a reply to: Phage

So you mean to tell me the SCOTUS went out of their way to confirm a rule on the books already?

a reply to: Vector99

They "went out of their way" to overrule the decision of a lower court. That's what they do. Unless they uphold the decision of a lower court. They do that too.

Had they not taken the case, states would have no recourse against "faithless electors." I said this in the OP. Maybe you should read it.

Does it mean that Trump is convinced he will be reelected by popular vote ?