Katzenjammer writes above:
[[ How is this stopped? ]]
I explained how it will be stopped in this post a few days' back:http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,136001.msg555692.html#msg555692
... which is a little long to reproduce here.
I'd like to add a little more to what I wrote there. Let me preface what I'm about to say next by recognizing that the Constitution indeed grants the states the power to choose electors as they wish. We know that.
The Seventeenth Amendment changed the way senators were chosen by the states. If I'm not mistaken, before the 17th, senators were elected (or appointed?) by the legislatures of each state, and common rank-and-file voters had no say in the matter. With the 17th, the power to choose senators was TAKEN FROM the state legislatures and placed directly into the hands of the voters, who now elect them at the polls. Once senators are chosen in this manner, the legislature or governor of any state cannot arbitrarily "over-ride" the choice "of the voters".
"National Popular Vote" is trying to "do a reverse" of what the 17th Amendment did -- this time with presidential elections instead of Senatorial ones.
It's an attempt to empower state legislatures (by their action of voting for NPV) to override and reverse the results of elections held in those very states.
It's an attempt to overtly replace the collective will of the voters with a different outcome (in this case, to "throw the vote" to whomever receives the popular vote majority nationwide).
What does the Voting Rights Act have to say about such legal shenanigans?
What constitutes "disenfranchisement" ??
As I wrote in the post referred to above, I believe the Supreme Court will find this to be an unconsitutional disenfranchisement of the voters in states that adopt NPV and a violation of voter rights, perhaps backed by the provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
By analogy, it's as if a state, after having had an public election for a senatorial seat, ignored the tally of the vote, and gave the seat to someone else. It doesn't matter why the state does this; it DOES matter that the voters' rights have been ignored.
How could a state adopt NPV and then act in a manner that satisfied the Constitution and current law?
Easy enough: cancel the in-state public presidential election for electors.
With no election, there is no "vote" from the citizens to be disregarded.
There is no disenfranchisement of the voters.
Now, the state is Constitutionally-compliant and can assign its electors in the manner it so chooses -- such as NPV.
Which of the NPV states will be the first to step up to the plate and cancel its presidential election?
If I was going to oppose NPV on a national scale, this is how I'd argue it...