5 ms·
This source is particularly biased for obvious reasons. Legally speaking there are a lot of open questions surrounding NPVIC and anyone claiming anything at thi
by jack_h 6y ago
This source is particularly biased for obvious reasons. Legally speaking there are a lot of open questions surrounding NPVIC and anyone claiming anything at this point should be looked at with a heavy dose of skepticism. There are good arguments on both sides but they're not dispositive.
- dane-pgp 6y agoWhat if the SCOTUS rules that the Compact isn't legally binding, but the states all act as if it were binding nevertheless? Certainly it would mean that a state could unilaterally break the Compact with impunity, but that would only make a difference to the election if the size of their defection was bigger than the amount of "excess" electoral votes the popular vote winner had, including from states that weren't part of the Compact. Also, you might find some electors from states outside the Compact acting "faithlessly" in order to counteract the "faithlessness" of the electors who betrayed it.
- delecti 6y agoEven if some states break from the compact too late for the other states to back out in an election, the end result would still be fine. I'll use the 2000 election as a concrete example to avoid a more charged recent one. Presuming that 270 electoral votes worth of states had signed up for the compact before the election, and then a couple of them had defected "too late" for the other states to react, the end result would still be in keeping with the goal of the compact. At worst, a "partial compact" has no effect, and at best it still accomplishes the goal of the "full" compact.