SCOTUS Win for NVPIC

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

What craziness are you talking about?

a reply to: Vector99

I'm going to assume a big reason why states must go through the fed for interstate compacts are...

well what is stopping them from creating their own union then?

It's actually a good thing for Republicans. They barely won the popular vote in some of these states. The electoral college should not be going against the will of the people in their state. They should be punished for being activists and refusing to honor their oath to their fellow citizens. The ruling doesn't change anything other than the 3 lunatics that did this last time, under this law they will get their ass handed to them either financially or prison.

originally posted by: Phage
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.

Actually, this decision says the exact opposite.

It specifically says:

"Today, we consider whether a State may also penalize an elector for breaking his pledge and voting for someone other than the presidential candidate who won his State's popular vote. We hold that a State may do so," Justice Elena Kagan wrote.

This will invalidate the NVPIC.

They talk a lot about faithless Electors invalidating the will of the people of their State.

And this decision is unanimous. This is a very good thing.

a reply to: Phage

So our country can now be mob ruled?

Great.

This is what our founders sought to avoid.

originally posted by: SKEPTEK
a reply to: Phage

So our country can now be mob ruled?

Great.

This is what our founders sought to avoid.

How is it mob rule. The other option of faithless electors doing whatever without consequences is far more dangerous. A party could buy them off nullifying the results of the citizens of that state. This ruling allows states to punish them. How is unclear but there will be consequences. They also took a sworn oath. That oath means something now. Don't honor the oath then the rule of law establishes a punishment for it.

a reply to: FlyinHeadlock

Because New York and California can decide who are President will be.

This will lead to a shooting war.

One in which Democrats and those aligned with them will lose if not completely eradicated.

a reply to: FlyinHeadlock

This ruling allows states to punish them.

They always could for some/most states.
But , that is up to each state and not the feds .
Penalties (if applied) :
1) Vote is invalidated.
2) Or , faithless elector is replaced.
3) Or , nothing.

Faithless Elector

originally posted by: SKEPTEK
a reply to: FlyinHeadlock

Because New York and California can decide who are President will be.

This will lead to a shooting war.

One in which Democrats and those aligned with them will lose if not completely eradicated.

How will you know who to shoot? How will you be able to tell the difference between the political parties?

originally posted by: SKEPTEK
a reply to: Phage

So our country can now be mob ruled?

Great.

This is what our founders sought to avoid.

Like the great and omnipotent Phage, you read the decision wrongly.

Read my response above, then read the actual words of the decision...

a reply to: tanstaafl


Why not actually quote what Kagan actually wrote?

And state election laws evolved to reinforce that development, ensuring that a State’s electors would vote the same way as its citizens. Washington’s law is only another in the same vein. It reflects a longstanding tradition in which electors are not free agents; they are to vote for the candidate whom the State’s voters have chosen.

State election laws. She is talking about Washington and the other states which have laws to require electors to follow the popular vote of the state.

There are states which do not have the same law as Washington. There are states which allow split votes, there are states which have no law about it at all, and there are states which will require their electors to vote for candidate with the greatest popular vote nationally. The states have all the power to make these laws, to determine how their electors will vote. The Constitution provides the power to make those laws but says nothing about how those laws are constructed, this decision affirms that. This decision also validates the states' authority to enforce them.


Here is more of what she said:

"Article II, section 1’s appointments power gives the States far-reaching authority over presidential electors, absent some other constitutional constraint. As [the Constitution says], each State may appoint electors 'in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.' ... This Court has described that clause as 'conveying the broadest power of determination' over who becomes an elector."

"The Constitution is bare-bones about electors. Article II includes only the instruction to each State to appoint, in whatever way it likes, [its presidential electors]. The Twelfth Amendment then tells electors to meet in their States, to vote for President and Vice President separately, and to transmit lists of all their votes to the President of the United States Senate for counting. ... That is all."

As I said, this case is a win for the NVPIC, but if the Compact ever comes into effect the Court will be sure to have something to say about it. But it will concern the legality of the Compact, not how electors are selected (or vote). According to the Constitution, the states have the power to determine that.

a reply to: Phage

This will be a humorous battle to watch if it ever comes to that. Suddenly, everybody on the Left will become Originalists, while every Conservative will argue intent rather than what is actually in the Constitution.

Personally, what folly would it be if a large majority of a state votes for one candidate and the votes go to another? In theory, a State could vote unanimously for one candidate, and have the electoral votes go to another. I'm not sure how anybody even remotely associated with the law could support such a compact. It has the power to actually take away the vote from large swaths of the population. Certainly there are election laws on the books pertaining to such an act.

a reply to: Arizonaguy

It has the power to actually take away the vote from large swaths of the population.

It removes votes of no one.

Certainly there are election laws on the books pertaining to such an act.

Election laws are exclusively the power of the states. Most states have laws that state the electors must appointed according to the popular vote of the state, 2 don't. States which are part of the Compact will appoint their electors according to the national popular vote, should it become effective.

originally posted by: Phage

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.

I don't think you realize just how powerful those measly two votes really are. 8 States have 1 population vote that equals 8 total, and also have 16 votes for their 2 senators each. So not counting the 100 Senate votes CA would have 53 population votes and it would just be with these 8 states a ratio difference of 8 to 53 or with the Senate's 100 24 to 55. VERY POWERFUL.

Looking at the lowest population states it would take the bottom 15 to beat CA total with today's system. If we went with only the popular vote then it would take 23 states to equal CA in voting power. CA alone would be overriding almost 50% of the states and the last time I looked we are a republic of 50 equal states even though we do account for population too.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I looked we are a republic of 50 equal states even though we do account for population too.

So, not equal then.

The misplaced concern about California dominating a national popular vote arises from an exaggerated view of how many people live in California,how many people vote in California, and how heavily Democratic California is. One out of eight U.S. voters live in California, but four out of 10 of them vote Republican. Meanwhile, one out of eight U.S. voters live in Appalachafornia, and four out of 10 of them vote Democratic. Clinton received 8.8 million votes in California, and Trump received 9.8 million votes from Appalachafornia.To put these numbers in perspective, note that over 137 millionvotes were cast in the 2016 presidential election.

www.nationalpopularvote.com...
Makes sense to me.

But, as I said, I prefer the current system.

a reply to: PhilbertDezineck

No. The SCOTUS upheld the constitution.

If you can find any thing to indicate otherwise i'd be interested. All that they did was uphold what the constitution says...the states get to determine how to cast their votes.

Did you not get that part in school where its explained that "United States" means just that? 50 states united to form a federalized union. Each of those states still has its own rights. The election of the POTUS is the states getting together (not the people, the states) and casting votes to elect the president. How that state chooses to select its votes is wholly up to them.

This is how it should be. And how its always been, with a couple oddball exceptions.

originally posted by: Phage
So, not equal then.

I'm not sure if anything is equal 100%, and we can both assume our founding fathers wanted to capture that equality while not ignoring the popular vote in the process.

But, as I said, I prefer the current system.

Agreed

a reply to: Phage

Isn't the compact seeking to remove the way the EC works?
If a state is required to cast votes based on the state's popular vote.....how would the compact--which sounds illegal----going to change that?
Seems like the rest of the country gets screwed.
And NYC and LA pick the POTUS.

Where is that constitutional lawyer when you need him......

The Constitution delegates how the elections are to be run in each state. This does not mean that states are authorized by the Constitution and without authority approval of Congress to join in an interstate compact. Each state is a unique entity and the Constitution does not mention collaboration between states on election counting.

This'll go to SCOTUS and every state law that is in collaboration will be told that law is unconstitutional UNTIL CONGRESS APPROVES OF IT. If the House, Senate and it is signed by the President for this collaboration to be authorized, then it will be.

a reply to: tkwasny

This'll go to SCOTUS and every state law that is in collaboration will be told that law is unconstitutional UNTIL CONGRESS APPROVES OF IT.

What are you talking about?

This is a SCOTUS decision.