It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
The Constitution delegates how the elections are to be run in each state.
"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."
originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
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......
Not necessarily.
And NYC and LA pick the POTUS.
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 million votes were cast in the 2016 presidential election.
originally posted by: Phage
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. She is talking about Washington and the other states which have laws to require electors to follow the popular vote of the state.
originally posted by: Phage
All they said about it was that the states elect the president (and vice president) though their electors. There is no mention of the popular vote. They left it to the states to sort out and this decision does the same, while validating laws which include recourse against electors who do not follow the rules of the state.
originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
a reply to: Phage
See what?
After 74 more votes, the whole mess goes to court, again?
And, right now, the states in the compact are all dems anyway, right? So how does it stop Trump from getting a second ter
Should a swing state get railroaded into the compact...how long before swing states sue to get the wishes of their citizens honored?
Seriously, do you have a problem with so much our lives being run by the courts?
What happened to the law branch of the U.S......the legislature?????!!!!?!?!!
Seriously, do you have a problem with so much our lives being run by the courts? What happened to the law branch of the U.S......the legislature?????!!!!?!?!!
Are you claiming that Republican presidents have never had the popular vote majority?
But, it cannot be good for the republic, as it seems to allow one one side, the Democrats, a voice.
You've seen the blue/red map...and how much of the country will be disenfranchised.
I think that's obvious to everyone. But there is not a small proportion of people who think that the president should be elected in the same manner as all other elected officials.
It could bite them in their asses some day.
Votes cannot be disenfranchised. Voters can be, by having their right to vote limited or removed. That is what the word means.
If the compact gets together to nullify the EC, it WILL disenfranchise votes in several states, with smaller populations.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe
The Confederacy declared itself a separate country. Not exactly 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. The Constitution does not give the power to form a separate country.
In any case, even if Congress passed such a law it would still end up in the courts.