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….

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.

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??

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?

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?

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.