4 ms·

>Faithless electors are constitutional but illegal In some states, by the laws of those states, which is absolutely irrelevant when we're discussing the legali

>Faithless electors are constitutional but illegal In some states, by the laws of those states, which is absolutely irrelevant when we're discussing the legality of the National Popular Vote compact (which is, obviously, kosher on the level of states that opted into it). >which means their vote needs to choose a representative that represents them, not citizens of a foreign state. By that logic, the Electoral College itself is unconstitutional. Or any election. "I didn't vote for X, so X doesn't represent me". Your interpretation of the word "represent" is not aligned with any real-world elections (including elections in the US). Also, let me remind you that the Congress exists, and provides two other ways that the states are represented. >which means their vote needs to choose a representative that represents them, not citizens of a foreign state. The electors in the electoral college represent citizens that voted for them. Whoever is decided to be the president by them is assumed to represent the people because it was a choice made by elected representatives. They can all, collectively, decide to appoint the person that Russia thinks is the best choice, and it will be constitutional. > which is why we have representatives elect the president. Which is why there isn't a problem in any criteria those representatives use to elect the president - including the National Vote. The problem is that what you think representation means and what the constitution codifies are two different things - which is exactly the problem that the National Vote is trying to address.

anon291 2y ago
> By that logic, the Electoral College itself is unconstitutional. How so... the electors from each state are chosen only by voters from that state using whatever selection mechanism (based on votes) that the legislature came up with. > Or any election. "I didn't vote for X, so X doesn't represent me". In what way have I said this. It's not about whether you individually voted for X. You can be outvoted by your fellow citizens. However, it must be fellow citizens of your state. When it comes to elections and politics, each state is separate. States cannot allow non-state-citizen voters a say in state policies. That's what it means to be a sovereign independent state which the constitution says the states are. > Also, let me remind you that the Congress exists, and provides two other ways that the states are represented. Congress has nothing to do with electors. > The electors in the electoral college represent citizens that voted for them. That's right. The citizens of the state who they represent. Thus the electors of Oregon represent Oregon voters only. If the electors from Oregon are chosen by national popular vote, then they are inherently representing non-Oregon-citizens, which is illegal, because now oregon citizens have lost representation. > Which is why there isn't a problem in any criteria those representatives use to elect the president - including the National Vote. There are major problems with it. It's the same as if the state their governor will be chosen by national vote. Illegal. The government of a state must represent solely those state's citizens, not the citizens of a foreign state.
- romwell 2y ago
  >That's right. The citizens of the state who they represent. Thus the electors of Oregon represent Oregon voters only. If the electors from Oregon are chosen by national popular vote, then they are inherently representing non-Oregon-citizens, which is illegal, because now oregon citizens have lost representation. The electors aren't chosen by the National Popular Vote. They are chosen by the citizens of the state. Then these electors go and vote for the winner of National Popular Vote at the convention, according to the wishes of the people that elected them. You seem to somehow ignore the fact that electors are actual people, and say that something is illegal without a basis.
  - anon291 2y ago
    > The electors aren't chosen by the National Popular Vote. Right now they're not, but if this compact were to be in force they would.
    - romwell 2y ago
      >Right now they're not, but if this compact were to be in force they would. OK, looks like I was incorrect on that: according to the current plan, they indeed would be[1]. However, that choice is still up to the state. The state may send a pool of any people as electors and require them by law to vote a certain way - under the same principle that outlaws faithless electors in some states. In the end, whatever choice the elected government of a state makes is the choice of the people. The constitution[2] specifically says that: >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. The Constitution specifically leaves this choice to the Legislature, not to the people of the state. The Supreme Court has reasoned that the word appoint in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, confers on state legislatures the broadest power of determination[3], so your argument that NPV yields a government that isn't "representative" doesn't hold any water, and has specifically been refuted by the Supreme Court already. In particular, the legislature specifically has the right to choose the electors. Input of people other than the state legislature is not required by the Constitution. [1] https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/section_9.10 https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/section_9.10 [2] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/ [3] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C2-3/ALDE_00013800/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C2-3...

anon291 2y ago

> By that logic, the Electoral College itself is unconstitutional. How so... the electors from each state are chosen only by voters from that state using whatever selection mechanism (based on votes) that the legislature came up with. > Or any election. "I didn't vote for X, so X doesn't represent me". In what way have I said this. It's not about whether you individually voted for X. You can be outvoted by your fellow citizens. However, it must be fellow citizens of your state. When it comes to elections and politics, each state is separate. States cannot allow non-state-citizen voters a say in state policies. That's what it means to be a sovereign independent state which the constitution says the states are. > Also, let me remind you that the Congress exists, and provides two other ways that the states are represented. Congress has nothing to do with electors. > The electors in the electoral college represent citizens that voted for them. That's right. The citizens of the state who they represent. Thus the electors of Oregon represent Oregon voters only. If the electors from Oregon are chosen by national popular vote, then they are inherently representing non-Oregon-citizens, which is illegal, because now oregon citizens have lost representation. > Which is why there isn't a problem in any criteria those representatives use to elect the president - including the National Vote. There are major problems with it. It's the same as if the state their governor will be chosen by national vote. Illegal. The government of a state must represent solely those state's citizens, not the citizens of a foreign state.

romwell 2y ago
>That's right. The citizens of the state who they represent. Thus the electors of Oregon represent Oregon voters only. If the electors from Oregon are chosen by national popular vote, then they are inherently representing non-Oregon-citizens, which is illegal, because now oregon citizens have lost representation. The electors aren't chosen by the National Popular Vote. They are chosen by the citizens of the state. Then these electors go and vote for the winner of National Popular Vote at the convention, according to the wishes of the people that elected them. You seem to somehow ignore the fact that electors are actual people, and say that something is illegal without a basis.
- anon291 2y ago
  > The electors aren't chosen by the National Popular Vote. Right now they're not, but if this compact were to be in force they would.
  - romwell 2y ago
    >Right now they're not, but if this compact were to be in force they would. OK, looks like I was incorrect on that: according to the current plan, they indeed would be[1]. However, that choice is still up to the state. The state may send a pool of any people as electors and require them by law to vote a certain way - under the same principle that outlaws faithless electors in some states. In the end, whatever choice the elected government of a state makes is the choice of the people. The constitution[2] specifically says that: >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. The Constitution specifically leaves this choice to the Legislature, not to the people of the state. The Supreme Court has reasoned that the word appoint in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, confers on state legislatures the broadest power of determination[3], so your argument that NPV yields a government that isn't "representative" doesn't hold any water, and has specifically been refuted by the Supreme Court already. In particular, the legislature specifically has the right to choose the electors. Input of people other than the state legislature is not required by the Constitution. [1] https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/section_9.10 https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/section_9.10 [2] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/ [3] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C2-3/ALDE_00013800/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C2-3...