5 ms·
But states' electoral votes don't match its public's votes. Most states are winner-take-all, which (if your constitutional understanding is correct) should be e
by brookst 2y ago
But states' electoral votes don't match its public's votes. Most states are winner-take-all, which (if your constitutional understanding is correct) should be equally unconstitutional. But I think the "representative form of government" refers to state offices being elected and not hereditary/etc, and not how federal electoral votes are allocated.
There are a lot of questions about its constitutionality, though. The Wikipedia page is quite good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality_of_the_National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality_of_the_Natio...
- anon291 2y agoThe constitution requires a representative system of government. That is met with a winner take all situation because the electors are chosen in a system that only assesses the votes of the citizens of that state (you elect a whole slate of electors rather than a single one). Another representative system of choosing electors is having state senates just pick who the electors will vote for, because that is also representative of the citizens of the state (just multiple layers of representation). Choosing electors based on another state's vote however is not representative.
- brookst 2y agoI mean it kinda sorta makes sense, but it is not an argument that anyone else has advanced. I think you're seeing a non-existent conflict between that state governments be representative (Article IV, Section 4) with the right for states to appoint electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" (Article II, Section 1).