• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

Democrats trying to bypass Electoral System with popular vote for 2020 election with Compact (12 states signed)

eclipze

Member
Mar 30, 2007
522
342
1,370
I can’t see how anyone could argue that this is unconstitutional, when the constitution explicitly states that it is up to each individual state on how they decide their electors should pledge their votes. We already have had multiple instances of faithless electors that vote against their pledged candidate, and that’s entirely constitutional. If you are opposed to states using their authority to determine how their electors should pledge, then we have a process for that. Call up your representatives and push them on an amendment to change the constitution, although I’m not sure there’s many true conservatives that would be in favor of states ceding more power to centgov.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
8,551
9,298
940
When you can't win.... Just change the rules.
It has come to my attention that some of you feel your vote doesn't matter. You are right, and I shall reinforce this injustice by ignoring the constitution and giving all of your votes to whoever NY and CA vote for. Now none of your votes matter, but trust me when I say this is for the best.

I can’t see how anyone could argue that this is unconstitutional, when the constitution explicitly states that it is up to each individual state on how they decide their electors should pledge their votes. We already have had multiple instances of faithless electors that vote against their pledged candidate, and that’s entirely constitutional. If you are opposed to states using their authority to determine how their electors should pledge, then we have a process for that. Call up your representatives and push them on an amendment to change the constitution, although I’m not sure there’s many true conservatives that would be in favor of states ceding more power to centgov.

Because the states pushing this are saying from now on the people of our state will no longer decide how their votes shall be pledged, and instead some other states will make our people's decision. Sure sounds unconstitutional to me. In fact, it sounds much more unconstitutional than when states limit rights that do not actually exist in the constitution, but the SC says they exist anyway and it's unconstitutional to infringe on them,
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TrainedRage

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,261
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
I can’t see how anyone could argue that this is unconstitutional, when the constitution explicitly states that it is up to each individual state on how they decide their electors should pledge their votes. We already have had multiple instances of faithless electors that vote against their pledged candidate, and that’s entirely constitutional. If you are opposed to states using their authority to determine how their electors should pledge, then we have a process for that. Call up your representatives and push them on an amendment to change the constitution, although I’m not sure there’s many true conservatives that would be in favor of states ceding more power to centgov.
Are states allowed to using their authority to determine how their electors should pledge based on the decision of an external state?

Because that is what is being proposed here. Red Candidate won the popular vote in your state? Too bad. Your state is a part of a 14-state coalition and because Blue Candidate won the popular vote overall, your state's result is nulled. Fall in line, you filthy provincial.
 

eclipze

Member
Mar 30, 2007
522
342
1,370
Are states allowed to using their authority to determine how their electors should pledge based on the decision of an external state?

Because that is what is being proposed here. Red Candidate won the popular vote in your state? Too bad. Your state is a part of a 14-state coalition and because Blue Candidate won the popular vote overall, your state's result is nulled. Fall in line, you filthy provincial.

If the states elected representatives determined that was best for their state, then yes. There is nothing in the constitution that prohibits states from any of the above mentioned.
 

eclipze

Member
Mar 30, 2007
522
342
1,370
It has come to my attention that some of you feel your vote doesn't matter. You are right, and I shall reinforce this injustice by ignoring the constitution and giving all of your votes to whoever NY and CA vote for. Now none of your votes matter, but trust me when I say this is for the best.



Because the states pushing this are saying from now on the people of our state will no longer decide how their votes shall be pledged, and instead some other states will make our people's decision. Sure sounds unconstitutional to me. In fact, it sounds much more unconstitutional than when states limit rights that do not actually exist in the constitution, but the SC says they exist anyway and it's unconstitutional to infringe on them,

Their vote did count. It’s reflected in the popular vote.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,261
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
If the states elected representatives determined that was best for their state, then yes. There is nothing in the constitution that prohibits states from any of the above mentioned.
In the 12th amendment, there is language that says it must be done on a per state basis. I will bold the areas where I believe this is shown:

Twelfth Amendment
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists 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 for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.... The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President to the United States.


For an internet argument? Not sure if I'd be able to convince you, but lawyers build their careers on phrasing such as this.

The point is that the Nevada governor has already vetoed it in that state. Our checks and balances are working, and just because the constitution doesn't seem to forbid it does not mean that it should be done.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Bolivar687

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
8,551
9,298
940
Their vote did count. It’s reflected in the popular vote.
It's not an unreasonable search and seizure. The people of this state voted for laws that say it is perfectly reasonable to search someone if the police believe they look like criminals or do not belong in the applicable neighborhood.

Said no one ever who supports the lunacy of letting CA decide how Nevada votes.