This blue-state election compact could
create a constitutional crisis
Washington Post,
by
Jason Willick
Original Article
Posted By: FormerDem,
6/15/2024 9:42:16 PM
Imagine a Jan. 6-style crisis, only this time with serious (as opposed to politically manufactured) disagreements over whether the presidential candidate who won a key state is entitled to its electoral votes.
That disturbing scenario just became a little bit more likely — not for the next presidential election but subsequent ones. Without fanfare, Minnesota’s governor signed legislation last month that would award the state’s 10 presidential electors to the national popular-vote winner even if he or she lost Minnesota. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact purports to take effect once states carrying 270 electoral votes (the minimum needed to win the presidency) have agreed to its terms.
Post Reply
Reminder: “WE ARE A SALON AND NOT A SALOON”
Your thoughts, comments, and ideas are always welcome here. But we ask you to please be mindful and respectful. Threatening or crude language doesn't persuade anybody and makes the conversation less enjoyable for fellow L.Dotters.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
coyote 6/15/2024 9:59:43 PM (No. 1737965)
This is patently unconstitutional, an attempt to over ride the Electoral College and make the election outcome a popular vote. California, alone, would wipe out the rights of probably 10 states. Who does this arrogant Governor think he is to change our country's principles on a power-seeking whim.
85 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
volksford 6/15/2024 10:04:14 PM (No. 1737966)
AL Gore and Hillary would both been president. Neat little scam isn't it ?
60 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Northcross 6/15/2024 10:06:45 PM (No. 1737968)
No. No. No. Go amend the Constitution first. Don't try this back door mendacity.
67 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
bpl40 6/15/2024 10:18:51 PM (No. 1737970)
This is changing the Constitution without amending it. Even then the basic nature of the Constitution cannot be altered. Will not last more than a few nanoseconds in front of the SCOTUS.
57 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
MickTurn 6/15/2024 10:23:40 PM (No. 1737972)
Winner take all is Unconstitutional. It steals the votes of many voters and gives them to another candidate.
Let's say the ratio of votes for 2 candidates comes out 1 vote more for one, that means that half of the voters votes were stolen and given to the other candidate. ALL States should be mandated to apportion Electoral votes based on the exact ratio of the votes of the people.
31 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Kate318 6/15/2024 10:26:59 PM (No. 1737974)
Dems are always looking for ways to game the system.
68 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Flyball Dogs 6/15/2024 11:03:59 PM (No. 1737978)
El Rushbo called it years ago: the communists can’t win in the arena of ideas, so they cheat.
56 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Birddog 6/15/2024 11:06:01 PM (No. 1737979)
lemme guess...all Dem "Leaning" States...right?
1st Governor to do it will be tarred and feathered, methinks the Supreme Court will rule that "Political Speech", of the sort the Nation was Founded upon.
Democrats should be reminded that every Gang Rape and every Lynching is "Democracy" in action...a simple majority in any given location at any given time can "over rule" existing LAW and custom.
That is why America is a Constitutional Republic.
And even THEY swore an oath to .."guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.” [Not a democracy.]
United States Constitution
Art. 4 Sec. 4 Par. 1
34 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
clipped wings 6/15/2024 11:06:49 PM (No. 1737981)
No! unconstitutional! Could put the country on the brink of a civil war!
28 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
YorkieMom 6/15/2024 11:47:26 PM (No. 1737992)
As I've said millions of times, the Democrats never, ever give up. They are addicted to power and control and will do anything to keep it.
34 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
DVC 6/16/2024 12:28:59 AM (No. 1738001)
Absolutely unconstitutional.
28 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
singermom9 6/16/2024 12:39:46 AM (No. 1738003)
So it is the DEMS ruing democracy.
20 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
Omen55 6/16/2024 1:00:33 AM (No. 1738007)
SCOTUS would strike it down.
It might even be 9-0.
22 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
skacmar 6/16/2024 1:06:10 AM (No. 1738008)
This sounds great to Democrats today (even though it is unconstitutional). Let's see how they feel about their plan if/when Donald Trump wins the popular vote and 270+ Electoral votes. Will places like California, New York, and Minnesota still feel the same when forced to vote for Trump under this "plan" (if it were in place this election)?
21 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
Trigger2 6/16/2024 1:45:35 AM (No. 1738013)
This should be proclaimed to be illegal. Period.
21 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
mifla 6/16/2024 3:32:43 AM (No. 1738020)
Dem playbook 101.
Pass laws or executive orders that are designed to keep Dems in power.
Tell the Republicans that if they don't like it, they can go to court. See ya in a couple of years.
17 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
Jethro bo 6/16/2024 6:33:33 AM (No. 1738051)
Why vote? This strips the voters in the states assign elector votes based on popular nation vote. The elections will not be decided by the states, but by a few mega states. POne would think the is obviously unconstitutional but then we all know there are 4 guarenteed votes on the Supreme Joke that will see it as constitutional cause it favors Democrats. And there are 2 other 'drama queens' whose votes are based on their popularity, certainly not law.
8 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
Rumblehog 6/16/2024 7:10:38 AM (No. 1738063)
I seem to recall that around 1860 several southern U.S. States "banded together" to make a statement about the national governance.
It didn't work out too well for them, as I recall. The one being proposed now would likely suffer the same fate.
10 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
Strike3 6/16/2024 7:27:34 AM (No. 1738069)
If you can't win an honest election, keep trying back doors and windows until you find one open. The democrat party needs to be destroyed for the good of the country.
14 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
tootall 6/16/2024 7:32:17 AM (No. 1738070)
Ranked voting or Preferential voting is another way of by-passing the Constitution and should not be allowed!
17 people like this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
Zigrid 6/16/2024 8:49:04 AM (No. 1738099)
These leftie elites in DC are vicious...and using everything they can think of to cheat....Minnesota...get rid of your governor...she's useless for WE the people.....
10 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
NorthernDog 6/16/2024 8:55:40 AM (No. 1738106)
I always get a laugh when Dems try to say the Electoral College is unconstitutional. It's actually the beating heart of the constitution. Everything else is built around it. The Founding Fathers allowed for it to be changed, but made it extremely difficult to change.
10 people like this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
WV.Hillbilly 6/16/2024 9:28:30 AM (No. 1738118)
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.
11 people like this.
Reply 24 - Posted by:
chance_232 6/16/2024 9:51:33 AM (No. 1738133)
I might be wrong, but im not so sure that this isnt unconstitutional. The state legislature decides to whom it awards its electoral college votes. A state could end the popular vote in the state and the legislature assign the votes. A state could, in theory, decide to cast their vote in every election for the Republican nominee. Regardless, this wont end well. I object to a handfull of democrat states determining who gets their electoral votes Regardless the wishes of their own voters. Curiously, the voters in these states have had no say in this compact.
The truth is, the constitution did not envision the unwashed masses choosing the president. In truth, we dont vote "for" the president, we vote for a slate of electors.
5 people like this.
Reply 25 - Posted by:
JackBurton 6/16/2024 9:54:00 AM (No. 1738136)
Notice that the Dems have first destroyed voter identification, certification, and in person voting. Have machines that count the vote that aren't available to auditors. Have flooded the country with illegals, who will be dupes for their elections.
THEN... 'popular vote.'
No.
8 people like this.
Reply 26 - Posted by:
janjan 6/16/2024 10:51:09 AM (No. 1738169)
The writer fails to even mention the reason the electoral college exists to begin with. Voters in these States would have little reason to show up at the polls. Their votes will be ignored. The current SC would make short work of this scheme but it is no surprise that the liberals will try it.
6 people like this.
Reply 27 - Posted by:
LC Chihuahua 6/16/2024 12:28:17 PM (No. 1738225)
If a state is going to decide who gets their electoral votes based on the national vote, what is the point in voting? This sounds illegal, but the truth is our 'lawmakers' can make the law be anything they want. I recall some states would give their electoral votes to a 'favorite son' on the first ballot knowing they could change on subsequent ballots. Only God knows how this will turn out.
3 people like this.
Reply 28 - Posted by:
Geoman 6/16/2024 1:14:56 PM (No. 1738240)
Our current system, the electoral college, was necessary to get all 13 "colonies" to ratify our Constitution and become states, as the smaller colonies did not want to be subject to rule by the large states, which is another reason that each state elects two senators, regardless of a state's population, while the apportionment of House members is based on population. Our Constitutional system worked for over 200 years, before democrats became "progressives" seeking perpetual totalitarian rule. Our Constitution should be defended by force, rather than simply capitulate to the emerging communists among the Blue-state citizenry. If those Hamas-like 15 states persist in pushing this unconstitutional declaration, which is tantamount to a Blue-state succession, should be pounded into submission and/or be defeated in battle by the other states.
3 people like this.
Reply 29 - Posted by:
Mass Minority 6/16/2024 1:49:43 PM (No. 1738255)
Article completely misses the point. The electoral college exists to thwart undue influence of a single state (Virginia at the time) to control the executive branch. In this case, California. In Both 2004 and 2016 the entire popular vote margin nationally was made by the tremendous landslide D victories in CA. Two huge Dark blue states with extremely large cities and single party control over elections.
This means, essentially, every presidential election will be decided by New York City and LA with an assist by San Francisco.
That should give every American nightmares.
6 people like this.
Reply 30 - Posted by:
Proud Texan 6/16/2024 3:20:46 PM (No. 1738308)
#5's answer (mandating each state to apportion Electoral votes based on the exact ratio of the votes of the people), would have much the same effect as what abandoning the electoral college would. If he wants to base electors on the win ratio in a state, the state itself should get two of the electors similar to what the original constitution called for in the House of Representatives and the Senate.
2 people like this.
Reply 31 - Posted by:
BeatleJeff 6/16/2024 6:30:24 PM (No. 1738376)
These are the same morons nattering on and on about "saving democracy, " yet the idea of awarding a state's electoral votes to a candidate who didn't win a majority of votes in that state just spits in the face of Democracy. Then again, the Rats are too stupid to recognize their flagrant hypocrisy.
1 person likes this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "FormerDem"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
There is this compact among so far 15 states and DC to give their electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote. It does not come into force this time probably, but who knows. Safe side, vote. And who knows, maybe we can get Trump the moral equivalent of a nationwide sweep showing that by their own rules he wins it all. let's vote...