The real problem with the Electoral College.

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,441
Caribbean
The Founders did not intend that women, black people, and native Americans vote.
Just curious, if you are going to make it sound unanimous, how many founders actually said that they didn't want black people to vote? Can you quote them?

Most of the founders intended that only in some states white men with significant money could vote for president.
Again, just curious, how many said significant money?

The Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected.
You mean the 50 states are in control of the 50 state elections by which someone become President?
 
Last edited:
May 2019
227
Salt Lake City, Utah
JakeStarkey: Read the Constitution. These elections are given to the states to hold by their own rules. What the Founders believed then is not beholden now. SCOTUS will uphold NPV by 9-0.

Code Blue: I think it is the other way around. What you believe is not beholden.

JakeStarkey: :)
 
Sep 2014
1,222
Queens, NYC
The NPV would be in effect only when using it would elect a Democratic president. As soon as using it would elect a Republican president, it will be discarded.
 
May 2010
11
The National Popular Vote bill mandates: "Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term."

This six-month “blackout” period includes six important events relating to presidential elections, namely the
● national nominating conventions,
● fall general election campaign period,
● Election Day on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November,
● meeting of the Electoral College on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December,
● counting of the electoral votes by Congress on January 6, and
● scheduled inauguration of the President and Vice President for the new term on January 20.

Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action

The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states.

There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,441
Caribbean
Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void.
Where have I seen this before? Using one clause of the Constitution to defeat another.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,441
Caribbean
The NPV would be in effect only when using it would elect a Democratic president. As soon as using it would elect a Republican president, it will be discarded.
That is sort-of how it worked with the Ethics in Government Act 1978. The majority Congressional party was happy to renew it, while it harassed the other party for three terms. Then it harassed a President of their own party, and then they didn't like it any more and joined the other party (who never liked it) in letting it sunset. (Personally, I miss the Ethics in Government Act, and I enjoyed how the Office of Independent Counsel used to drive them batty.

But not everything is so easy to undo. That's why sunset provisions have value. If that NPV nonsense were to produce say a "Republican" President, why would she sign a bill that undermines her very path to reelection.

That's the "real problem" with haphazard Constitution tinkering, especially by a state of mind long of passion and partisanship,. Sometimes the fix is worse than the disease. This is what happened with the Ethics in Government Act. It was an overreaction to Nixon. Look what happened with the "nuclear opinion." One can look at the first sentence of the opening post to see what this thread is an overreaction to.
 
May 2019
227
Salt Lake City, Utah
Passion and partisanship well describes both parties in equal measures.

The NPV is certainly not "haphazard Constitution thinking."

The Constitution of 1787 is not an automatic fit for 2019.

The world changes, and so will the Constitution.