4 ms·

Isn't this an assumption of the "popular vote compact" that has been enacted in some of the leftist states? They would send their electoral votes to the winner

by rsj_hn 4y ago

Isn't this an assumption of the "popular vote compact" that has been enacted in some of the leftist states? They would send their electoral votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote without regard to what the people in the state voted. The legality of this compact requires that states be able to override the wishes of their population in any given vote and assign electors based on other criteria.

Syonyk 4y ago
"States rights for my pet causes, not for thine!" is one of the remarkably consistent principles one finds in US politics. Annoyingly. We'd be a lot better off if things were put back to the states.
- nullish_signal 4y ago
  Electoral Votes serve State Sovereignty, as designed. The Electoral Compacts REMOVE states rights, Liberal States disregard their Citizens' Electoral Votes.
  - FireBeyond 4y ago
    One of these rulings would state that the state could gerrymander as it liked, and that there is no body that is allowed oversight, no remedies that can be sought. For a "ridiculous" but perfectly legal example in this case, NC could create an electoral district that comprised the governor's home, and his brother's, who lives next door. And say that that is the entirety of the electoral district, and that that district's voting will determine the votes of the Electoral College for that state. Try to spin that as being designed behavior.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
FireBeyond 4y ago
So is the other extreme more palatable to you? That the legislature can gerrymander however it so wishes, and state that there is -zero- avenue of appeal in any setting?
- nullish_signal 4y ago
  Ah, the other extreme. The alternative extrema we can visit since we got bored of this extreme, and in the whole of this universe there exist only these two opposite extreme choices. Sad!
  - FireBeyond 4y ago
    Not a matter of getting bored with anything. That extreme will be the literal and actual outcome if the SC rules in favor of the state. NC's contention is exactly that: "to violate the state constitution when drawing congressional maps and that the state courts do not have the power to stop them". And further, that that theory extends to all other state election rules put in place through ballot initiatives, state constitutions, and administrative regulations — including foundational state policies like the processes for voter registration and mail voting and basic guarantees like the secret ballot. That the legislature can change any or all of these without referendum, without ballot, without vetoability, and without review in court, state or federal. So yeah, that extreme. Because it is extreme.
klyrs 4y ago
Can the people pass a constitutional amendment to forbid that compact, and sue in the state court to overturn it? That is the right under attack.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by rsj_hn 4y ago

Syonyk 4y ago

"States rights for my pet causes, not for thine!" is one of the remarkably consistent principles one finds in US politics. Annoyingly. We'd be a lot better off if things were put back to the states.

nullish_signal 4y ago
Electoral Votes serve State Sovereignty, as designed. The Electoral Compacts REMOVE states rights, Liberal States disregard their Citizens' Electoral Votes.
- FireBeyond 4y ago
  One of these rulings would state that the state could gerrymander as it liked, and that there is no body that is allowed oversight, no remedies that can be sought. For a "ridiculous" but perfectly legal example in this case, NC could create an electoral district that comprised the governor's home, and his brother's, who lives next door. And say that that is the entirety of the electoral district, and that that district's voting will determine the votes of the Electoral College for that state. Try to spin that as being designed behavior.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

FireBeyond 4y ago

So is the other extreme more palatable to you? That the legislature can gerrymander however it so wishes, and state that there is -zero- avenue of appeal in any setting?

nullish_signal 4y ago
Ah, the other extreme. The alternative extrema we can visit since we got bored of this extreme, and in the whole of this universe there exist only these two opposite extreme choices. Sad!
- FireBeyond 4y ago
  Not a matter of getting bored with anything. That extreme will be the literal and actual outcome if the SC rules in favor of the state. NC's contention is exactly that: "to violate the state constitution when drawing congressional maps and that the state courts do not have the power to stop them". And further, that that theory extends to all other state election rules put in place through ballot initiatives, state constitutions, and administrative regulations — including foundational state policies like the processes for voter registration and mail voting and basic guarantees like the secret ballot. That the legislature can change any or all of these without referendum, without ballot, without vetoability, and without review in court, state or federal. So yeah, that extreme. Because it is extreme.

klyrs 4y ago

Can the people pass a constitutional amendment to forbid that compact, and sue in the state court to overturn it? That is the right under attack.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]