The Electoral College Debate.. Walter E. Williams

[mystery-ak]

The Electoral College Debate
Walter E. Williams

Posted: Oct 17, 2018 12:01 AM

Democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, seeking to represent New York's 14th Congressional District, has called for the abolition of the Electoral College. Her argument came on the heels of the Senate's confirming Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. She was lamenting the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, nominated by George W. Bush, and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, nominated by Donald Trump, were court appointments made by presidents who lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College vote.

Hillary Clinton has long been a critic of the Electoral College. Just recently, she wrote in The Atlantic, "You won't be surprised to hear that I passionately believe it's time to abolish the Electoral College."

Subjecting presidential elections to the popular vote sounds eminently fair to Americans who have been miseducated by public schools and universities. Worse yet, the call to eliminate the Electoral College reflects an underlying contempt for our Constitution and its protections for personal liberty. Regarding miseducation, the founder of the Russian Communist Party, Vladimir Lenin, said, "Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted." His immediate successor, Josef Stalin, added, "Education is a weapon whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed."

more
https://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2018/10/17/the-electoral-college-debate-n2528536

[Cyber Liberty]

The Rats dominate the votes in the big cities, so of course they want to eliminate the Electoral College.  They are quietly doing an end run around this safeguard by getting States to sign on to National Popular Vote, which would award their College Electors for President to the winner of the popular vote nationwide, even if that state votes for the other candidate.  There would be no point in voting at all in the smaller states.

Twelve states have already passed NPV laws.

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation

[Fishrrman]

Cyber wrote:
"They are quietly doing an end run around this safeguard by getting States to sign on to National Popular Vote, which would award their College Electors for President to the winner of the popular vote nationwide, even if that state votes for the other candidate.  There would be no point in voting at all in the smaller states.
Twelve states have already passed NPV laws."

I don't believe "NPV" could survive a Supreme Court test (at least not in a conservative-leaning Court).

I believe it would be declared unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates both the Voting Rights Act and is also in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (guaranteeing "equal protection" of the laws).

[Cyber Liberty]

Cyber wrote:
"They are quietly doing an end run around this safeguard by getting States to sign on to National Popular Vote, which would award their College Electors for President to the winner of the popular vote nationwide, even if that state votes for the other candidate.  There would be no point in voting at all in the smaller states.
Twelve states have already passed NPV laws."

I don't believe "NPV" could survive a Supreme Court test (at least not in a conservative-leaning Court).

I believe it would be declared unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates both the Voting Rights Act and is also in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (guaranteeing "equal protection" of the laws).

I agree, Fisher.  In a sane court, that shit would be tossed at the first available opportunity.  Talk about disenfranchising the voters!  I wish we had a sane court system.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Cyber wrote:
"They are quietly doing an end run around this safeguard by getting States to sign on to National Popular Vote, which would award their College Electors for President to the winner of the popular vote nationwide, even if that state votes for the other candidate.  There would be no point in voting at all in the smaller states.
Twelve states have already passed NPV laws."

I don't believe "NPV" could survive a Supreme Court test (at least not in a conservative-leaning Court).

I believe it would be declared unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates both the Voting Rights Act and is also in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (guaranteeing "equal protection" of the laws).

I dunno if it is unconstitutional.  NPV still keeps the Electoral College, and it will still be the electors voting for President.  It is just one method for how an individual state chooses to allocate its electors, and that's not something the Constitution addresses at all.  Heck, it would be entirely Constitutional for states to select Electors without having a popular vote in their state at all.

If it is to be declared unconstitutional, I suspect it would be under the 10th Amendment's requirement that any interstate compact be approved by Congress.

[Cyber Liberty]

I dunno if it is unconstitutional.  NPV still keeps the Electoral College, and it will still be the electors voting for President.  It is just one method for how an individual state chooses to allocate its electors, and that's not something the Constitution addresses at all.  Heck, it would be entirely Constitutional for states to select Electors without having a popular vote in their state at all.

If it is to be declared unconstitutional, I suspect it would be under the 10th Amendment's requirement that any interstate compact be approved by Congress.

It is undeniable it's an Interstate Compact.  The 12 states that passed it (so far) have clauses written that the law only takes effect if a threshold number of states approve it.  More states are considering it.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

It is undeniable it's an Interstate Compact.  The 12 states that passed it (so far) have clauses written that the law only takes effect if a threshold number of states approve it.  More states are considering it.

Right.  So, it should require Congressional approval to be valid law.

[Cyber Liberty]

Right.  So, it should require Congressional approval to be valid law.

Article I, Section 10:

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.

Sounds like it would be legal if passed by a simple majority of both houses, and the President gets no veto.

I think it's potentially a "voters rights" violation, but that can be twisted by a good lawyer.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Article I, Section 10:
Sounds like it would be legal if passed by a simple majority of both houses, and the President gets no veto.

I think it's potentially a "voters rights" violation, but that can be twisted by a good lawyer.

There's some Supreme Court precedent suggesting that Congressional approval is not required for every interstate compact.  Though I think the current court would, correctly, hold that it is required.

[Cyber Liberty]

There's some Supreme Court precedent suggesting that Congressional approval is not required for every interstate compact.  Though I think the current court would, correctly, hold that it is required.

I'm back to hoping for sane courts. 

[Fishrrman]

Major Bill wrote:
"I dunno if it is unconstitutional.  NPV still keeps the Electoral College, and it will still be the electors voting for President.  It is just one method for how an individual state chooses to allocate its electors, and that's not something the Constitution addresses at all.  Heck, it would be entirely Constitutional for states to select Electors without having a popular vote in their state at all."

Therein lies how NPV will be overturned, sir.

Yes, you correctly observe that the Constitution pretty much "leaves it to the states" to determine how the electors will be selected. But there are limits that I believe are sanctioned by both the Constitution (Amendment XIV) and federal law (The Voting Rights Act).

If a state wished to assign its electors as per "the popular vote winner" (in other states), it's free to do so, with one very big proviso:
There must be NO ELECTION WITHIN that same state... because...
If there -IS- an election held...
.... then... under the Voting Rights Act (I believe it can be argued), the state must respect the votes of each and every voter WITHIN that state.

And elections are "won" by the highest number of votes cast (vis-a-vis someone receiving a lower number of votes).

If candidate A wins the popular vote within the state, whereas candidate B loses (but wins the popular vote in other states), if the state then chooses to arbitrarily "invalidate" the votes cast (remember that each vote is cast by an individual), that disenfranchises the voters.

It wasn't Constitutional when southern states did whatever they could to prevent black voters from having their votes counted, and it will remain unconstitutional that ANY voter's vote could be arbitrarily "dis-counted" in a statewide election.

So... again... a state such as Massaschsetts may assign its electors based upon the outcome of elections IN OTHER states. But to do so, it must refrain from having an ELECTION -in- Massachusetts for that purpose (to assign electors).

If Massachusetts DOES conduct an election within its own borders, it must then abide BY THE RESULTS of that election, because to disregard the results will violate the "equal protection of the laws" that the Constitution guarantees EVERY voter.

That's how I believe the arguments will go when [someday] the concept of "NPV" reaches the U.S. Supreme Court (as it will certainly do).

No electIon? Fine, assign your electors however you please.
BUT -- if you HAVE an election -- you better respect the voters' choice.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Every time they lose an election, it's the System's fault.

If it were anyone But the Rats, I'd find the hypocrisy mind blowing.

After all their bloviating about being the party of The Little People, those without any real power and how they're going to Fight for them.

Then the Little People - through the Electoral College, reject their tyranny and they come all unglued howling for a pure, unrestrained Democracy/Mobocracy One Man One Vote wave that shuts out all the Citizens in less populated States, in perpetuity.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Article I, Section 10:
Sounds like it would be legal if passed by a simple majority of both houses, and the President gets no veto.

I think it's potentially a "voters rights" violation, but that can be twisted by a good lawyer.

I don't think writing the bill such that it only goes into effect based on what other states do necessarily rises to a compact between states.  Kind of like how when one airline raises/lowers prices, the rest tend to follow along, even though there is (supposedly) no collusion.  And I think the following stands on firmer ground than the compact argument.

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.

I also believe that section means that a state can let non-citizens vote (or pick their electors via monkeys throwing darts), which is exactly why we need the EC.

[Cyber Liberty]

I don't think writing the bill such that it only goes into effect based on what other states do necessarily rises to a compact between states.  Kind of like how when one airline raises/lowers prices, the rest tend to follow along, even though there is (supposedly) no collusion.  And I think the following stands on firmer ground than the compact argument.

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.

I also believe that section means that a state can let non-citizens vote (or pick their electors via monkeys throwing darts), which is exactly why we need the EC.

I disagree with it not rising to the level of "compact," but IANAL, and it's not up to me because this is a legal term subject to interpretation.  I agree with everything else.  A state can use any method it likes to appoint electors, including the monkey thing.  I also agree with @Fishrrman that if an election is held, the state  better honor the results of that election. 

It's bound to end up in the courts if the threshold number of states pass NPV.  Here I am, still praying for sane courts.