I saw on MSNBC a little while ago that Colorado and 10 other states including the Dist of Columbia

[politicaljunkie41910]

has pledged it's Electoral Votes to the candidate who wins the Popular Vote. I was searching for a post that may have addressed this already and didn't see one, but wanted to know what others thought about this. Does anyone know whether this is even legal to do so? Has it ever been done before?

[manor321]

1. It's a very good idea.It is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

It only takes affect if the total number of states that count up to 270 electoral votes pass it. It has no effect until then.

[tritsofme]

3. The pact would fail the first time it is tested, it is not enforceable.

The first time there was a conflict between the popular vote and the traditional EC count, a pact state in total control of either Republicans or Democrats (whoever is the popular vote loser) would be under great pressure to spurn the pact, and give their preferred candidate the White House. There would be nothing stopping a state from taking this action after the November elections, and it seems to me incredibly likely.

The only way to kill the electoral college is with an amendment to the Constitution.

[Voltaire2]

4. So it would work unless a state acted in bad faith.

Meanwhile, there is a near zero chance of enacting an amendment to reform our election processes. So I' take my chances with the popular vote compact.

[unblock]

7. I thought the idea was the states pass laws

Specifying how the electors will be selected.

Not sure how a state can really change such a law after an election.

[tritsofme]

8. Electors do not meet for weeks after the election.

I don’t see why a determined state could not change their laws for selecting electors in that period?

[unblock]

10. So, imagine states with 270 electoral votes pass the compact

It's all over the news, it's all about popular vote now, the electoral college is effectively reduced to a mere formality.

Then we have an election where candidates campaign in population centers across the nation instead of just electoral college battleground states.

Then one candidate wins the popular vote but the other would have won the electoral college had it been done the old way.

Yeah, there's *time* for a state to change the law, but would it really do so? Would the courts uphold it changing the rules after the fact?

[tritsofme]

11. The vulnerability and shakiness of the pact would be big news too.

Since the pact is not enforceable, its dissolution after the election would always be a possibility, you are creating a system that is inherently unstable. It’s also not like people would just stop looking at the traditional electoral math, and looking for conflicts within the new system.

Suppose California is a pact state and the Republican narrowly managed to win the national popular vote, however the Democrat would have won the traditional EC count. I don’t have to imagine very hard to know which way the prevailing wind would be blowing here at DU...

[unblock]

12. Well we'll just have to disagree on laws not being enforceable

Because yeah, sure, a state could change a law after an election for the sole purpose of canceling democracy. No one would complain, certainly not the candidate who just won the national election, nor the majority of the nation who voted for that person, nor the courts who don't like laws that change things retroactively.

In fairness it could happen. Something like it already did in 1876. But it would be a rarity with much controversy and it would be bitterly contested and could lead to civil war.

[tritsofme]

13. The pact is by definition not enforceable.

There is no mechanism to force other pact states into compliance should they choose to spurn it, if they fall under 270 votes, the pact simply becomes inoperative again.

In the course of a single presidential election cycle, states could come and go, with states gaining new leadership in midterm elections that either embrace or reject the pact. There could be chaos deep into the cycle where neither candidate knows what rules the coming election will be judged under, with the possibility always lurking that the whole thing could be scrapped after the election. It sounds like a recipe for mass chaos.

[unblock]

14. I think you're working under the premise that the pact is just a vague promise

It's meant to be firmly written into law in each of the states in the pact. The laws in each state would then be plainly read. Yes it is possible that there may be legal challenges but the concept is pretty straightforward.

I think the scenario you describe, with an election being overturned after the fact, is highly improbable. What I think is more likely is that a state backs out *before* the election if that looks like it is going to be helpful to the party in control of that state.

It's a bit like a union. Unions work, but it is possible that too many people cross the line and the strike falls apart.

So I see your point, but I don't think an after-the-election reversal is likely. Too ugly, too messy.

[BigmanPigman]

5. I just read about another one on DU today.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1090&pid=3504

And this...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142278762

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/432061-dem-states-move-to-bypass-electoral-college

[djg21]

6. National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

[Gothmog]

9. This good news

Link to tweet

?s=20

[librechik]

15. I voted for that!

It must be legal, there are people who test that out before a referendum--whatever that.s worth...