Walz, Kamala, and the Electoral College
Walz said the quiet part out loud:
“I think all of us know, the Electoral College needs to go. We need a national popular vote,” Walz said Tuesday during a campaign fundraiser at the home of Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Walz made similar comments at an earlier fundraiser in Seattle, as well.
While running for president in 2019, Harris said she was “open” to the idea of abolishing the Electoral College.
That seems like it’s on the Democrats’ agenda, although ordinarily it would take a constitutional amendment. There’s also the The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which wouldn’t abolish the Electoral College but would get around it and make the national popular vote supreme, and would have the advantage (if SCOTUS found it be constitutional, which is doubtful in the present court) of not requiring an amendment to be implemented.
However, much as Walz and Harris and their supporters might long for the national popular vote to be ascendant, they seem to have walked back overt statements of that sort:
Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate, Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, remained silent Thursday on whether he still supports eliminating the Electoral College, after the Harris campaign insisted his position did not reflect that of the campaign’s. …
… [A]ccording to campaign officials pressed on the issue following Walz’s remarks, eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a national popular vote is not an official position of Harris’ current campaign.
And here’s how they tried to undo what Walz said:
“Governor Walz believes that every vote matters in the Electoral College and he is honored to be traveling the country and battleground states working to earn support for the Harris-Walz ticket,” a Harris campaign spokesperson said in a statement sent to select media outlets like CNN and USA Today. “He was commenting to a crowd of strong supporters about how the campaign is built to win 270 electoral votes. And, he was thanking them for their support that is helping fund those efforts.”
That doesn’t fit what he said.
And let’s hear from demagogue Jamie Raskin:
Just last month, Democratic Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin suggested there could be deadly consequences for Americans if the Electoral College was not done away with. Raskin said a national popular vote was a far better option than the current “convoluted, antique, obsolete system from the 18th century, which these days can get you killed as nearly it did on Jan. 6, 2021.”
The article also mentions that Walz signed a bill that made his state of Minnesota a party to The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. That seems to be another indication of wishing to override the Electoral College, which is seen as an impediment to Democrat power.
I wonder, though, if abolishing the Electoral College outright would be a question of “be careful what you wish for.” In states such as California, where the Electoral College guarantees that all the electors will vote for the Democrat because the Democrat always wins the state, there probably are many people who would otherwise vote for Republicans but who just don’t bother. Those people might be more energized to get to the polls and vote if the Electoral College were to be eliminated and they would be contributing to a national popular vote that would determine the winner.
A national popular vote for president is a stupid, mean, deceitful idea. It would make the 5 largest cities, e.g. L.A. and Chicago, all Democratic swamps, would determine the course of the USA, disenfranchising W. Va.,Kansas, Wyoming, Idaho, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Vermont, New Hampshire, the Dakotas, among others, where the Dem-GOP vote might be split 48-52.
If the Electoral College is gone, then you can really dial up the ballots cast in the names of illegals. Imagine California Democrats trying to bleed the state of every vote they can–we would see 75-25% splits in favor of the Democrats in presidential elections.
The perpetual Democrat lament: “The Constitution gets in our way. We don’t like the EC, we don’t like the Supreme Court, we don’t like it that small states get two senators, we don’t like it that yahoos in rural Idaho get a vote that’s just as equal as a Puerto Rican’s vote in NY.”
So just remember, when they say “our democracy” what they mean is “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
Well, well. Finally, a government college that they don’t want to fling endless buckets of money at.
Now that made me Laugh. A very good one, Marion
They are just living up to their party’s name. They will not be happy until the US is a pure democracy, with all the attendant evils even the Greeks recognized after suffering.
At least, marginally, the Republicans seem to believe in the republic.
If the Electoral College is tossed, it will open the door for several (many?) states to secede from the union.
And this time, they will have a damn good, legitimate reason for doing so.
The 13 original colonies VOLUNTARILY decided to join together and create one nation. There is nothing in the Constitution that speaks to a state wishing to leave the union.
Have any of them heard of “The Connecticut Compromise ?”
I doubt it.
@neo:if SCOTUS found [the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact] to be constitutional, which is doubtful in the present court
I’m curious to know what would be the basis of ruling it wasn’t Constitutional.
Article II, Section says
and I’m not seeing any language in there about that would forbid the NPVIC. It seems the legislature appoints a slate of Electors in any way they want, including based on the outcome of the national popular vote, and they can change that at any time with or without a compact of other states, from what I can see there or in the amendments.
Currently they choose to do it how they do it now, but they didn’t used to, and nothing in the Constitution appears to require that they tie it to the outcome of any vote at all.
If the Electoral College favored Democrats, the Democrats would be leading the charge to keep it intact.
**AND**
If the Electoral College favored Democrats, the Republicans would be leading the charge to abolish it.
[Wellll, Republicans rarely lead a charge to do anything. Whaddaya say we amend “leading the charge” to wording that is kinder, gentler.]
Mark my words.
The (usual, canonical) pro and con arguments pale in comparison to “whom would it favor these-a-days?” — ignoring just whom might it favor in future days.
MJR
Ridiculous argument. Despite the GOP loosing presidential elections, I doubt any have ever called for abolition of the EC
What is needed are two major reforms.
-1- We need to make voting precincts as nearly equal in population as would be practical. If that results in many more than 438 congresscritters, so be it.
-2- We need for electoral votes to be assigned by each voting precinct voting for one elector from that voting precinct, plus two electors-at-large for the state as a whole.
I have no clue as to how either of these measures might ever pass.
Fire away . . .
@M J R:The (usual, canonical) pro and con arguments pale in comparison to “whom would it favor these-a-days?” — ignoring just whom might it favor in future days.
I’ve seen this expressed as “procedural arguments are always insincere”.
physicsguy (5:51 pm), thank you for your kind words [smile].
Actually, it’s *far* more an observation than an argument. It’s not an argument at all.
Never was.
Niketas Choniates (5:52 pm) has it just about right.
M J R:
Democrats are called Democrats for a reason, and Republicans are called Republicans for a reason.
@M J R:We need to make voting precincts as nearly equal in population as would be practical. If that results in many more than 438 congresscritters, so be it.
They’d all have to be the same size as Wyoming, so we’d need 574 in Congress. I’m not sure that’s obviously so much more unwieldy as the current 435, which was fixed by statute in 1911 and doesn’t require an amendment.
We need for electoral votes to be assigned by each voting precinct voting for one elector from that voting precinct, plus two electors-at-large for the state as a whole.
Forcing every state to be Nebraska and Maine; they can do this voluntarily now if they wish, but an amendment would be needed to force them all to do it this way.
But given that you are already needing to rewrite the Constitution to make this change, what problem are you trying to solve? I can see it making the swing states less important, but other than that it’s not going to do much else. I’m not seeing what a one-party state gets out of it that makes them strongly in favor, and I see what a swing state has to lose that would make them strongly oppose.
Niketas:
Please see this as well as this.
neo (6:20 pm), acknowledged.
I am happy to grant that physicsguy (5:51 pm) has a point, in that Republicans have never shown any interest in messing with the Electoral College, and if the Electoral College favored Democrats in some future year, they’d go along — much like Republicans not pressing for Fox News anchors to moderate a presidential “debate”.
But to return to “Democrats are called Democrats for a reason, and Republicans are called Republicans for a reason,” yes, there are historical reasons for those names, but how relevant are those names today?
I think that for most people, “Democrat” and “Republican” are just names for the two major parties now, with little thought given to meanings attached to those names. They may as well be the Blue Party and the Red Party. (After all, we do have a Green Party!)
Certainly “Democrat” is laughable when considering that Harris never won a presidential primary bla bla bla. But let’s not stray too far afield.
I agree with “for a reason”, and the reason is historically significant, but I question its present-day significance by the time we’ve all arrived in the 21st Century.
The National Vote Compact would last right up until a Republican wins the national vote and the blue states would change their laws the next day back to the old system.
Niketas Choniates (6:27 pm) asks, “given that you are already needing to rewrite the Constitution to make this change, what problem are you trying to solve?”
First, I don’t want to rewrite the Constitution, but on the other hand, I don’t see that what I’d want to see can be done voluntarily state by state. It’s a leading reason that I confessed above, “I have no clue as to how either of these measures might ever pass.”
Confession: I have wandered into pie-in-the-sky theorizing (apologies), but it’s how I’d like to see things work. If only I were in the room with the Founders [laughs at self].
“What problem are you trying to solve?” I see a problem in all of a state’s umpteen-and-then-some electors all going to one candidate when the vote within the state is almost evenly split — or even if it is split unevenly. I see a problem when a state has to go all-in this way or that way, when a state’s preference, doing as I theoretically propose, may better reflect proportionally the will of its voters.
Conclusion: I think my pie-in-the-sky way is a better way than doing what we have now. Your mileage may vary (and probably does).
Yancey Ward (6:53 pm), yep. My point (in)exactly.
Maybe not back to the “old system”, but they’ll scurry to find a way to adjust the system so that it more reliably reflects Democrat interests.
M J R:
It is still the case that Republicans tend to favor state-by-state solutions and federalism, and Democrats tend to favor a powerful central government with majority control over the whole, even if the majority control is very narrow (as long as the Democrats are the ones in control). That’s the reason Democrats have less respect for the filibuster, too – they want to muscle through radical statutes with a bare majority and have no interest in protecting minority rights. There is a tendency (not always honored, of course) among Republicans to have more respect for minority rights and for the right of states to go their own way (abortion is one example of this).
That is why the names of the parties still have some meaning, whether most people are aware of that meaning or not.
@neo: I took a look at your articles. Both are written by the same guy, and have extensive citations to articles arguing that the compact WOULD be constitutional, of course, so I’m not sure it’s a slam dunk that the Supreme Court would just reject those in favor of this one guy, but let’s see what he says…
The first one is long, but if I’m summarizing fairly, it says the compact should be understood to be unconstitutional, while conceding that the text of the Constitution does not forbid it.
In order to make the case, the author says that states never did it that way, and that the Framers did not want to choose the President by national popular vote. Consequently, of all the possible ways a state legislature COULD and HAS chosen its electors, national popular vote has been implicitly but not explicitly singled out as not a valid way. He says that the Framers intended that states select Electors according to “in-state sentiment” either directly through the state’s voters or indirectly as expressed by the elected legislature’s selection of a slate.
My reaction is:
1.) Nobody disputes that states never selected Electors based on national popular vote; the dispute is whether the Constitution actually forbids it.
2) Allowing for the sake of argument that “in-state sentiment” is the only valid method to choose Electors, what if the people in that state express the sentiment that the Electors should be chosen by national popular vote? If their state has joined that pact, those voters HAVE expressed that sentiment in an “indirect” way that he acknowledges was valid when state legislatures made the decision without the state’s voters. They voted for that law that instructs the legislature how to select Electors, or they voted for the legislature that put that law in place, and they didn’t repeal it or make their legislature repeal it.
3) He spends a lot of time on the discussions of the Framers, but where they ended up, our current system, was a compromise between those who DID want popular election of the President and the various factions who wanted it done some other way. And what they agreed to as a compromise simply does not rule out the states deciding that they will use the national popular vote to choose Electors. The states do not all have to do it the same way and the way they do it is deliberately not specified. The Framers could have specified it and chose not to. (They don’t seem have put nearly as much importance on the issue as we do today.)
The second article does not explain why the compact would be unconstitutional, just that it’s a bad idea: it wouldn’t be honored, and couldn’t be enforced. I agree it wouldn’t be honored or enforced, but that wasn’t my question. The only thing said about it actually being unconstitutional there is “In my view, it is unconstitutional for states to appoint electors against the wishes of their own state electorate but in accordance with the will of voters outside the state,” referring back to the first source. But state legislatures used to choose the slates of electors without the input of their states’ voters at all, they don’t have to have a reason for why they choose the Electors they do, and they never did. If there was a compact, the voters of that state already DID express their sentiment that the national popular vote winner should be President, in an indirect way that he says is okay if the legislature just picks a slate with no vote at all.
neo (6:56 pm), point well-taken. I get you. Thanks for engaging me.
First they pushed and still going to wipe out the Electoral College with this popular voting.
They would love for the big cities to pick the President
I should think that eliminating the electoral college would provide as much incentive to dissolve the union as anything imaginable.
I would not make predictions, because the American people seem to be unpredictable. On the other hand I struggle to imagine the majority of states ceding their political voices to the voters in a few massive urban areas; many, if not most, of them, verging on ‘third world’ status. Would any sane person voluntarily amplify the impact of voters who have consistently elected the quality of political leadership found in NY, Chicago, LA?.
A friend’s email signature is; “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.” The framers of the constitution could have had a similar line in mind.
In any event it was a stupid thing for Walz to say so close to an election.
(A) It betrays the radical anti-Constitutionalism of Democrats at the highest levels.
(B) It suggests Democrats are already laying the groundwork for excuses when they lose in 2024.
Sensible people like Jonathan Turley have in the past advocated a national popular vote. Not sure what he’s advocating now. He seems increasingly dismayed by what he hears from the political establishment. The electoral college has one utility: it obviates the necessity of having elections administered by the federal government. There are some agreeable adjustments we can make to the electoral college short of eliminating it, but no one seems interested in that.
==
Almost all the deficits in procedure can be remedied at the state level. The Democrats have no intention of doing that. The defects are there due to inertia and cack-handedness or they’re there to benefit Democrats.
Tim Walz is a clown, as evidenced by this most recent Kinsley gaffe. (Michael Kinsley: “A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth—some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.”)
But how did it happen that the 2024 Democratic ticket offers two clowns?
I think it’s becoming quite clear that Kamala Harris’s “nomination” was a giant FU from “President” and “Dr.” FJB to their party’s backstabbing insiders, and that it reflects the party’s current schizophrenic orientation to reality.
On the one hand, the party would be happy to “fortify” the election, as in 2020, and retain whatever power it actually exercises under the auspices of whoever has been running the executive branch since at least January 20, 2021.
On the other hand, with Donald Trump perhaps surging beyond the margin of both error and “fortification,” the party would be content to throw Harris (and the moronic Walz) to the wolves, saddle President Trump with the coming economic woes and other debacles, and ride to the rescue in 2028 with a fresh slate of candidates.
If the latter scenario hews closer to reality, then—as the pollster Rich Baris has been saying—the New York Times and other regime mouthpieces would be wise to adjust their dubious polls accordingly and prepare the “progressive” brownshirts for the party’s looming electoral defeat. If they don’t, the Democratic Party may not be able to keep its savage id from rioting in the streets and torching the blue cities through January 2025 and beyond.
The leaders of most countries are not elected by tha majority of voters. Most Prime Ministers are elected by their locality, then the other elected ministers or a coalition of them determine who will be the leader of the country, regardless of the majority vote.
This is actually quite similar to the electoral college where each locality (state) votes to determine the final leader. While some countries have both Presidents and Prime Ministers, normally the Prime Minister is seen as the leader of the country.
If the US used the parliamentary system, the presidency could potentially change every two years with the Senate and House elections. If we used the current legislative members, Trump could have been the leader for the last two years.
Niketas Choniates on October 11, 2024 at 5:40 pm said:
@neo:if SCOTUS found [the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact] to be constitutional, which is doubtful in the present court
I’m curious to know what would be the basis of ruling it wasn’t Constitutional.
Article II, Section says
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
and I’m not seeing any language in there about that would forbid the NPVIC.
how about this?
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.
@mongo: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.
The “agreement or compact” seems to be in the context of wars and alliances. The courts have said this section means states can’t combine into alliances against the Federal government or each other.
States enter into compacts all the time. Here’s a short list of existing state compacts I found on Wikipedia:
Appalachian Region Interstate Compact (Virginia, West Virginia)
Pacific Northwest Economic Region (States of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, with the Canadian jurisdictions of Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Northwest Territories)
Interstate Compact on Licensure of Participants in Horse Racing with Pari-Mutuel Wagering (15 states)
Southern Growth Policies Compact (12 states)
Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (all 50 states)
Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision (all states, two territories, and Washington, D.C.)
Driver License Compact (all states except Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Wisconsin)
Electronic Registration Information Center (32 states and Washington, D.C.)
Multistate Tax Commission (all states except Delaware, Nevada, and Virginia)
Interstate Compact on Industrialized/Modular Buildings (Minnesota, New Jersey, North Dakota, Rhode Island)
Interstate Insurance Product Regulation Compact (45 states and D.C.)
Interstate Insurance Receivership Compact (Illinois, Michigan, Nebraska)
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida)
Bear River Commission (Idaho, Utah and Wyoming)
Breaks Interstate Park Commission (Kentucky and Virginia)
Colorado River Compact (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, Nevada, Arizona, and California)
Columbia River Gorge Commission (Oregon and Washington)
Connecticut River Valley Flood Control Commission (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont)
Delaware River Basin Commission (Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, and New York)
Delaware River Port Authority (Pennsylvania and New Jersey)
Delaware River and Bay Authority (Delaware and New Jersey)
Great Lakes Commission (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, plus Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec as associate members)
Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas)
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and District of Columbia)
Interstate Environmental Commission (Connecticut, New Jersey and New York)
Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact (all states except Hawaii and Massachusetts)
NEIWPCC (originally called the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission) (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont)
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska)
Palisades Interstate Park Commission (New York and New Jersey)
Red River Compact Commission (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas)
Susquehanna River Basin Commission (Pennsylvania, New York, and Maryland)
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (California and Nevada)
Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor (New Jersey and New York)
Interstate Mining Compact (24 states)
If Presidents were elected by popular vote nationwide, it would be true that “every vote would count.” But in a close election, that would mean that EVERY VOTE would have to be recounted. By comparison, in the 2020 Presidential election, there was a recount (IIRC) in only one state- Florida.
Recounting in all 50 states would be one helluva mess, resulting in national paralysis. I could imagine recounts taking six months. My experience with hand counting objects is that the second or third count is not necessarily more accurate than the first count.
Niketas:
It’s the “against each other” part that applies here. See this. There are other issues, as well.
It’s not just the one guy saying it, either.
And I don’t think anyone is saying it would be “a slam dunk” that it would be found unconstitutional. I happen to think that’s what would happen with the present Court, however.
But how did it happen that the 2024 Democratic ticket offers two clowns?
I think it’s becoming quite clear that Kamala Harris’s “nomination” was a giant FU from “President” and “Dr.” FJB to their party’s backstabbing insiders, and that it reflects the party’s current schizophrenic orientation to reality.
MollyG:
That’s my take.
I’m an ex-Democrat, ex-Leftist. Speaking from that position, we are resourceful, determined people but a lot of what we do is throw stuff at the wall to see what sticks and proceed from there, as OG Alinsky taught us.
We are not remorseless perfect Terminators, who see several steps beyond conservatives and with us The Fix is Always In.
If that were so, Democrats wouldn’t be faced with this dreadful Biden/Harris/Walz clulster-F while facing a perfect nightmare opponent, Donald J. Trump.
I don’t deny Harris might still win, but I find the fatalism of many conservatives on this score self-defeating.
Anyone see the cringe Men For Kamala ad? Well it turns out, to no one’s surprise, that these men are actors. Backgrounds explained here:
https://x.com/joma_gc/status/1844793372692848872
Physics guy: Spelling police here. It’s losing presidential elections, not “loosing”.
I see so many intelligent people make that error and it’s positively baffling how common it is.
@ Marisa > “it’s positively baffling how common it is.”
It’s also not the only common mistake you can see on the internet, even among professional pundits, and now they are endemic in the print media as well.
I blame it all on Spell-check.
Well, and lousy schools for the last 30 years, but also Spell-check.
Everything that the donkeys want to do (court packing, new states, popular vote) is about gaining permanent control of the central government (duh). It does not matter if it is constitutional or not. The constitution is not a suicide pact. Any of these things is grounds for a hot civil war the object of which would be the obliteration of the donkeys. As Major Clipton says at the end of The Bridge Over the River Kwai, “Madness! Madness!” That is why I don’t think any of those things will come to pass.
Anyone who speaks of secession needs to explain a plan for the nukes.
I blame it all on Spell-check.
Well, and lousy schools for the last 30 years, but also Spell-check.
Who will check the spell-checkers?
@ Niketas > “nothing in the Constitution appears to require that they tie it to the outcome of any vote at all”
First, for the record, and some of my argument will be a rehash for clarity (such as it is):
General information about the Electoral College.
https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/electors#qualifications
I don’t know of any schemes other than “tying electors to a vote,” but Wikipedia says (same link at * below):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
It really doesn’t matter what any prior procedures entailed, because: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” and the legislatures have so directed.
The current laws of each state are given here:
https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/reports/summary-electoral-college-laws-sept24.pdf
If someone isn’t familiar with the NPVC, here is the Colorado legislation (*spit*), which I presume is based on some model that all of the compacted states have used. It has the proviso that, once it goes into effect, it supersedes the existing law of that state.
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019A/bills/2019a_042_enr.pdf
At the moment, that point of implementation is still in the future (*):
The Wikipedia article is pretty fair and balanced, so far as I can tell, not giving more weight to the arguments for or against the Compact, and includes a detailed history of its genesis and progress.
No one here will be surprised that it was ginned up because Bush beat Gore in 2000.
However, Wiki points out (*):
IMO the most damaging point, and one which might get it decreed unconstitutional, is the fact (see CO law excerpt below) that the presidential election could be decided one way one time, and another way the next time, putting the politicians and parties in a continual confusion over what procedures to use in campaigning. Everyone agrees that strategies for an electoral college system would differ from those of a popular vote system.
That deadline might have made sense when they started pushing the NPVC 20 years ago, but in the current era of non-stop campaigns it is unreliably vague, and as a general rule SCOTUS doesn’t like those kinds of laws at all.
Other arguments for and against the compact, as outlined at the Wikipedia article, seem to me to be somewhat out-of-date (for instance, they use a map of campaign emphasis in swing states from 2004 — it was already different by 2008, and wildly inaccurate now).
The argument that the NPVC would force candidates to appeal to all 50 states and DC, instead of just swing states, is almost laughable, and I don’t know how they made that with a straight face. Maybe the mega-urban / depopulated-rural split was not as overwhelming in 2004.
This was an interesting point:
If a presidential candidate wins by ONE vote out of the entire country, that ONE vote still determines the winner.
Everything electoral since November 2016 has been directed toward increasing the Democrats’ margin of the popular vote.
The fraud isn’t happening at a 3.1 per every precinct level, but at a couple of thousand per Democrat-controlled precinct, and it’s on track to exceed that in every state, unless the border is secured, the voter registration rolls are cleaned up, and every state enacts stringent protections for mail and personal identification.
After that is done, you can talk to me about national popular votes.
@ Niketas > “Here’s a short list of existing state compacts”
I’m sure glad you didn’t give us a long one!
If each individual state had their own electoral college, perhaps the densely populated big cities or regions would wield less political power in their respective states.
See NY, Illinois, Western Wa, Western Oregon , etc.
As an example, just check out red countries vs blue counties in NY state or Washington state or Oregon, etc.
The demokrat party considers the US Constitution to be their real big problem; their impediment to taking total control of the federal govt . They already control the gigantic federal bureaucracy (to great effect) and the media.
Hello. I think the key to why the NPVC would be unconstitutional lies in the first words of that relevant portion of Art. II Sect. 1: “Each State shall….” If the NPVC were to be deemed valid, then really, from that moment, an individual State participating in it is no longer appointing its electors, is it? Certainly not in such manner as its legislature directs. Rather, is it not then the voters of essentially every other State that are thenceforth appointing that State’s electors (along with those of every other State in the compact)?
In other words, is not a State that passes and adheres to the NPVC essentially delegating its own Constitutionally bestowed power to apppoint electors to everybody else? Maybe the best that could be said for the idea is that each State retains (quasi) only so much “appointive power” as its proportional share of all voters in the country gives to it, and not more.
Of course, even that is pretty tenuous. I suppose even (and perhaps especially) on that point, the concept falls down, since the Constitution’s direction is “as the Legislature thereof shall direct,” not “as the people” or “the voting citizens” or anything similar.
I think, then, that it becomes a question of whether States have the right or authority to delegate or ‘contract out’ their task of appointing Electors to any group, body or anything other than the State’s own legislature. On that rock the NPVC must be wrecked, it seems to me.
I almost forgot to mention (in my remaining 3 minutes of edit time!!): “in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct” is exploded if the NPVC is in force in a State for the other reason that — how are all of the other States determining who is a voting citizen? If the voters across the country are then functionally the “electors,” or proxies thereof, in the collective, then how can one possibly accept that even a given State’s own ability to regulate who among its citizenry may vote is so thoroughly diluted and ruined because it becomes so contingent on what every other State does in that regard?
Let us remember that Walz signed a bill passed by the Minnesota legislature. It has truly turned into a rotten state.It elected him governor!
Niketas Choniates on October 11, 2024 at 7:04 pm and
AesopFan on October 12, 2024 at 2:19 am:
Thank you both for your review and summary of the two Neo articles or follow up discussion of the NPVC puts and takes.
Within all of that discussion, I think this quote that NC provides from the 2nd article is closest to the issue at hand: “In my view, it is unconstitutional for states to appoint electors against the wishes of their own state electorate but in accordance with the will of voters outside the state,” This aspect is also reinforced via Philip Sells on October 12, 2024 at 11:22 am.
“Rather, is it not then the voters of essentially every other State that are thenceforth appointing that State’s electors (along with those of every other State in the compact)?
In other words, is not a State that passes and adheres to the NPVC essentially delegating its own Constitutionally bestowed power to appoint electors to everybody else?”
This concern that other states end up controlling the presidential election results in questionable ways was already part of the issue between the various red state AG’s suit against Penn. that the SCOTUS rejected based on some flawed thinking about “standing”. Given such contests between states, where else but the SCOTUS can they go to get some approximation of an actual constitutional resolution?
Perhaps it is also appropriate to (again?) bring up an issue I only recently learned about via some commenter on some other blog:
namely that the original constitutional language [before factions?] was for the election of the VP as the 2nd most desired candidate, and that this may have been done as part of checks and balances against the power of the president. The VP over riding tie votes in the Senate, and possibly being someone with significant policy differences from the president, might be checking the goals or preferences of the president, rather than our current scheme of party apparatchiks being policy clones, etc.
Whatever we may think about Pence’s decision not to delay or interfere with the 1/6/21 vote certifying process, and even though he was a 2nd choice/ presidential candidate choice part of the party ticket, he was also a constitutional officer that can and did act separately from the president. That day and result was a very significant “check” on the ambitions of Trump for a 2nd term.
In regard to the NPVC and national selection of the president, it is my understanding that during the 1787 convention, the Framers desired to select the president via a national consensus of some sort, since he was really the only national constitutional officer. But they wanted something not as direct (and possibly passion laden) as the direct election of the House reps; nor quite as state oriented as the (pre 17th Amendment) selection of Senators. And that is part of the background for the compromise of the EC.
In the vein of “constitutional originalism” and just what was the understanding of the people doing the ratifying of the constitution, perhaps that view and history would help SCOTUS deny the constitutional validity of the NPVC??
If we are thinking about amendments to the national voting process, perhaps we should also consider making the election of the VP a separate category from the president, rather than having the VP candidate “selected” by someone who has only won a party primary, not a national voting cycle. Of course the VP pick might also be a runner up during the primary, but that is not always how the VP is selected.
Candidates would run for the office of VP [perhaps expecting to eventually succeed the president in due time with such national exposure]. They might still run under a given party banner, and thus be expected to follow closely the policy positions of the party and/or of that party’s candidate(s). But the end result could be election of a R party president and a D party VP, or some other combination. That would put the VP position back into contention as another check and balance on the “unitary” presidency.
Since the VP is “only a heartbeat away from the presidency” now, this approach might also bring forth candidates who are better qualified as “stand in” presidents should that become necessary, rather than simply those “whose time it is” or for other merely political party concerns.
“…dreadful…”
Place yer bets NOW on whether or not Harris beats Joe Biden’s “record” number of votes “earned” in the 2020 election thus supplanting him as the country’s MOST popular “elected president” in history….
perhaps we should also consider making the election of the VP a separate category from the president,
==
Scrap the quasi-elective vice presidency. It’s a 5th wheel office. Instead, allow the president to appoint (with advice and consent) up to six VPs to supervise portfolios of departments and agencies, with the composition of the portfolios at the president’s discretion. The president’s cabinet would be limited to his chief of staff, the VPs, any cabinet secretary or agency chief who reported to him directly, and a selection of officers with whom he wanted to meet in person regularly even though they had a reporting channel (e.g. the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff).
==
You can have an order of succession specified in statutory law as you do now. Should the vacancy have occurred late in an elected president’s term (as it did in 1963), the successor would just fill out the term. Should it occur earlier, you could have a successor who would hold the presidency for a brief period (say, eight or nine months) while the state legislatures elect a successor and said successor assembles a new cabinet.
==
One thing we should do right now is to remove the Speaker of the House and the President pro tem of the Senate from the order of succession specified in the Presidential Succession Law. Over the last eighty odd years, the only Speakers who had any executive experience at all were Joseph Martin and boozy John Boehner; Martin was a lapsed small-city newspaper editor and Boehner ran a small business. The President pro tem of the Senate is by convention the dean of the majority caucus and is usually ancient; there have been nonagenarians in that job.
the Framers desired to select the president via a national consensus of some sort,
==
The electoral college was a compromise between competing plans.
If each individual state had their own electoral college, perhaps the densely populated big cities or regions would wield less political power in their respective states. See NY, Illinois, Western Wa, Western Oregon , etc.
==
They used to have something called the ‘county unit rule’ in statewide elections in Georgia. Seems gratuitous.
==
I think if you have a state which is a demographic behemoth or is composed of disparate units, you can address that problem by having a confederal government, where each of the grand division of the state has their own government and goes its own way on public policy. Illinois, New York, and California would be obvious candidates for this.