4 ms·

It's an interesting question. I'm reading article II of the constitution and I'm not finding text to directly support your claim. To the contrary, the "lazy j

by klyrs 2y ago

It's an interesting question. I'm reading article II of the constitution and I'm not finding text to directly support your claim. To the contrary, the "lazy justice" practice of textualism indicates that each State Legislature directs the manner of appointing electors. As I read it, a State Legislature could indeed appoint electors according to the national popular vote. > 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. Moreover, the constitution doesn't even tell the electors how to vote! > The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President... The question of faithless electors has been delegated to state law as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

anon291 2y ago
Article IV, Section 4 (https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-4/section-4/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-4/section-4...) > The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, I personally interpret that to mean that the feds will intervene should a state not provide a representative form of government. The Supreme Court kinda agrees. It's not a common clause that's ruled on, but in 1874, they did rule on it: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIV-S4-3/ALDE_00013637/['article',%20'1 https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIV-S4-3/AL...'] > the Court stated that the Guarantee Clause leaves room for states to structure their governments in various ways yet remain republican. Which I take to mean that the Court will intervene should a state do something that is clearly not republican.
- klyrs 2y ago
  From your link, the definition of a Republican Form of Government is elaborated... > It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it... From this exerpt, it would seem that a popular vote compact would be more consistent with this definition than the status quo which concentrates voting power into rural populations.
  - anon291 2y ago
    Except each state has to be republican, not the United States as a whole
    - klyrs 2y ago
      Oh, but we were talking about the selection of the President of the United States. If that clause is truly about the state and not the whole of the country, then it isn't about the President.
      - anon291 2y ago
        Which is why I've been consistent in saying that the state legislatures can choose arbitrarily, but if they hold an election for electors then the electors must be selected using only votes from that state. They can avoid this by choosing not to hold an election. But if there's no election, then there's no national popular vote. Thus, in either scenario, there is no possibility of a national popular vote interstate compact.

by klyrs 2y ago

anon291 2y ago

Article IV, Section 4 (https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-4/section-4/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-4/section-4...) > The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, I personally interpret that to mean that the feds will intervene should a state not provide a representative form of government. The Supreme Court kinda agrees. It's not a common clause that's ruled on, but in 1874, they did rule on it: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIV-S4-3/ALDE_00013637/['article',%20'1 https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIV-S4-3/AL...'] > the Court stated that the Guarantee Clause leaves room for states to structure their governments in various ways yet remain republican. Which I take to mean that the Court will intervene should a state do something that is clearly not republican.

klyrs 2y ago
From your link, the definition of a Republican Form of Government is elaborated... > It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it... From this exerpt, it would seem that a popular vote compact would be more consistent with this definition than the status quo which concentrates voting power into rural populations.
- anon291 2y ago
  Except each state has to be republican, not the United States as a whole
  - klyrs 2y ago
    Oh, but we were talking about the selection of the President of the United States. If that clause is truly about the state and not the whole of the country, then it isn't about the President.
    - anon291 2y ago
      Which is why I've been consistent in saying that the state legislatures can choose arbitrarily, but if they hold an election for electors then the electors must be selected using only votes from that state. They can avoid this by choosing not to hold an election. But if there's no election, then there's no national popular vote. Thus, in either scenario, there is no possibility of a national popular vote interstate compact.