'Hacking the Constitution': States Quietly Plan to Ditch Electoral College

[mystery-ak]

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/04/21/states-quietly-sign-plan-change-election-system

BY
FOX NEWS INSIDER
 // APR 21 2014 // 10:39PM AS SEEN ON
THE KELLY FILE

Nearly a dozen states have quietly signed onto a plan to effectively ditch the Electoral College and instead, award the White House to the candidate that wins the popular vote.

The National Popular Vote agreement would take effect if states that represent 270 electoral votes all commit. New York has most recently joined the efforts, bringing the number of states to 10 plus the District of Columbia. Altogether, they represent 165 electoral votes.



Without the Electoral College, FoxNews.com digital politics editor Chris Stirewalt said we would have had a whole different trajectory of presidents. If presidents are selected through the popular vote, he said that campaigns will focus on maximizing turnout in urban centers. He said the “plan is to subvert the will of the Constitution and the founders.”

“This is disempowering to rural America and empowering to urban America,” he said, explaining that it amounts to a "hack" of the Constitution by people who don't believe in the Electoral College.

Since there is not enough support in Congress to change the Constitution and officially end the Electoral College, this plan would allow popular vote advocates to work around it.

Stirewalt pointed out that this plan is part of a larger trend on the part of "frustrated" liberals who haven't been able to bring about the changes they want.

"They are simply taking them. They are simply doing it and if people dissent and if people complain and if the stodgy, old Constitution gets in the way, if the fussy old Whigs in the Electoral College complain about it, too bad. Because they're gonna hack the code and they're gonna find a way to get what they want," he said.

So can this actually happen?

Stirewalt believes there will be significant pushback once people across the United States realize the "deadly gravity of what is being proposed" and if the states move closer to 270.

He said on the surface, the idea of the popular vote winner becoming president sounds good to a lot of people. But Stirewalt concluded by saying the United States "is not a democracy. This is a republic."

video at link

[Oceander]

It cannot and will not take effect in any binding way unless Congress blesses it, and Congress is very unlikely to bless this sort of interstate compact (under the Constitution, agreements among the states have to be approved by Congress).

[katzenjammer]

How is this stopped?  To my knowledge there is no inter-state compact (at least that one can discern).  It seems like each state is just independently passing legislation on how they will assign their electors (i.e., give them all to the national popular vote winner).  It has been mentioned here in a prior thread on this topic that this type of action by the state may be disenfranchising to the voters of the state (since the results of their statewide election are, in effect, being ignored).  How does this get challenged?

[speekinout]

It cannot and will not take effect in any binding way unless Congress blesses it, and Congress is very unlikely to bless this sort of interstate compact (under the Constitution, agreements among the states have to be approved by Congress).

Can you be more precise about what stops the states from doing this? AFAIK, the Constitution allows each state to decide how they will choose their representatives to the Electoral College. Surely Congress can't interfere with the states' rights to that extent.

[Lando Lincoln]

I wrote a piece about how brilliant the Electoral College is once it is understood.  I used the Illinois Gubernatorial race as a hypothetical.  Wonder if I can find the damn thing.

[Fishrrman]

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".

Consider:
"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...

[katzenjammer]

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".

Consider:
"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...

Yes, thank you.  I remembered your post from the other thread and mentioned it, but was too lazy to find it.

I agree with all that you said (here, and in the prior post), I guess that I wasn't clear in my request.  I am wondering about where the court challenges will originate that, as you say, will probably wind their way up to SCOTUS.  Will there be a challenge *before* this monstrosity starts rolling?  Or will someone have to wait until they are actually disenfranchised by having their state ignore the results of their state's Presidential election, and actually assign the electors to the npv winner?  I am wondering if challenge(s) can come about before any damage is done?

[Oceander]

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".

Consider:
"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...

That's what I was looking for!!!  You've written a masterful little summary of things, for which I thank you.

[speekinout]

I seem to be of a different mind than most recent posters on this topic. I'm not fond of the 17th amendment. Or any other amendment or law that takes power from the states and gives it to the Fed'l gov't. One of the great things - IMO - about this country is that we are a republic. The states and the people were supposed to have most of the power; the Fed'l gov't was only supposed to have limited powers. The Constitution was pretty clear about that.
Over the years we have been gradually giving more and more power to the Feds, and I don't see that much, if any, of those transfers have been to the good. I would like to see us stop transferring power, and in my wildest dreams, we would start giving power back to the states.
Granted, sometimes the states, or at least some states, do things that many of us find offensive, but if we transfer power to the Feds. every time that happens, how long will it be before we have a totalitarian fed'l gov't?

[katzenjammer]

I don't think anyone here favors the 17th Amendment; I certainly don't.  Fish was just using it as an opposite structure as part of his explanation of how this npv movement can be shut down.