3 ms·

The Constitution gives the states complete control over how they use their electors. If they want to say "we will give them to the popular vote winner if enough

The Constitution gives the states complete control over how they use their electors. If they want to say "we will give them to the popular vote winner if enough states will do the same such that the popular vote winner wins" then that is completely within their power. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 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.

bitshiftfaced 2y ago
Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 > No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
- Sparkle-san 2y ago
  It is certainly an open question as to whether or not it would need the approval of Congress. Does the compact clause have more weight or does the plenary powers doctrine have more weight? Realistically, it depends who the nine justices of the supreme court are if it ever makes it that far.
edmundsauto 2y ago
At the same time, how these electors are chosen cannot trample on the civil right that citizens have to vote. States can’t just do whatever they want, if what they want to do is disenfranchise voters. At least that’s my hope.
- Sparkle-san 2y ago
  It would probably depend on constitutional interpretation as to what a state legislature could do nowadays. South Carolina's legislature picked their electors until 1860 and if they wanted to revert to that an orignialist interpretation of the constitution would support it. One could make an argument that taking the right to vote away after granting it isn't in line with other later amendments or the spirit of the constitution and the justices seem more than capable of picking and choosing to make whatever outcome they want to happen, happen. All that being said, switching to apportioning electors according to the popular vote winner would make many more people's votes count given that we're realistically waiting on the results of 7 states to decide the upcoming election.
- jauntywundrkind 2y ago
  While re-enfranchising far more people, who have 1/300th the voting power of someone in another state. States are allowed to good things in service of the union.

bitshiftfaced 2y ago

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 > No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Sparkle-san 2y ago
It is certainly an open question as to whether or not it would need the approval of Congress. Does the compact clause have more weight or does the plenary powers doctrine have more weight? Realistically, it depends who the nine justices of the supreme court are if it ever makes it that far.

edmundsauto 2y ago

At the same time, how these electors are chosen cannot trample on the civil right that citizens have to vote. States can’t just do whatever they want, if what they want to do is disenfranchise voters. At least that’s my hope.

Sparkle-san 2y ago
It would probably depend on constitutional interpretation as to what a state legislature could do nowadays. South Carolina's legislature picked their electors until 1860 and if they wanted to revert to that an orignialist interpretation of the constitution would support it. One could make an argument that taking the right to vote away after granting it isn't in line with other later amendments or the spirit of the constitution and the justices seem more than capable of picking and choosing to make whatever outcome they want to happen, happen. All that being said, switching to apportioning electors according to the popular vote winner would make many more people's votes count given that we're realistically waiting on the results of 7 states to decide the upcoming election.
jauntywundrkind 2y ago
While re-enfranchising far more people, who have 1/300th the voting power of someone in another state. States are allowed to good things in service of the union.