A flaw in the compact amongst the states to elect the POTUS via popular vote

Updated:

Originally posted 2.3.19:

4.1.19:

At the risk of beating this thing to death, I include a link to another viewpoint that favors the compact.

The link is at Townhall, which tends toward the conservative viewpoint.  However, the article is flawed in its efficacy at argumentation.

She does not go into why it is not a compact between states.  If it is a compact between states, it must be approved by Congress.  She does not say why this compact is not a compact, and therefore is constitutional.

Her reasoning for favoring the compact is better explained in a link she provided.  I read that article too, and I am not persuaded.

She claims that it will benefit the GOP, but I don't know about that.  Has she looked at county wide election results?  Almost all the big cities in my state of Texas went for Hillary in the last election.  She bases her reasoning on what is happening in Florida, and extrapolates that nationwide.  Overall, she has some questionable things to say about how many people live outside the cities.

She claims that opponents of the pact have their facts wrong, but I am not so sure about hers.  Whatever the case, for or against, it is still a compact, and must be approved by Congress;  otherwise it is unconstitutional and unenforceable.

Finally, I read through all the links.  One of her arguments seems to be that those who oppose it haven't read the proposition.  Interesting enough, she provides no link to the compact itself.  How does anyone know what is in the compact anyway?  There is nothing in the proposition that forces a state to adopt what she proposes.  In order to make it legal, and uniform, the Congress must approve it.


3.31.19:

Here's another article about this movement.  Why include it?  What's new?  Nothing in the article, I suppose.  But here's another thought--- that Congress counts the Electoral Votes.  Secondly, the Congress is not obligated to accept the Electoral Votes of any state, if there is any irregularity.  Since the compact is not binding upon Congress, then why should Congress accept the votes that a state in the compact sends?

In other words, not all the dots are dotted, and not all the t's have been crossed.  Before this can be legal, the Congress has to okay the Compact.

Anybody who loses in the Electoral College because of this Compact will have cause to challenge the outcome.  When it gets to Congress, the Congress can overturn it even if the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case.

There is a long tradition that the Electoral College elects the President.  However, procedures must be followed.  This procedure is incomplete without Congressional approval.  Congress must approve the pact, or it is non-binding.  Relevant part of US Constitution--- Art I,  Section 10, paragraph 3, to wit:

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 [ emphasis added ]

In short, neither the Congress, nor the Supreme Court has to be bound by what a few states may say about their electoral votes.


3.30.19:

Let's all get worried about this now. ( not )  Actually, I see Morris' point:  a lot of squishes could join up with this.  In that case, it is almost sure to create chaos.  Besides, as I have mentioned, it is not enforceable.

Dick Morris: Electoral College in Jeopardy https://t.co/yr8puKcBwY

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) March 30, 2019

3.29.19:

Delaware governor signs bill to join compact.  Now up to 13 states, it says.  Someone asks what happens if Trump wins the popular vote in 2020?

That would be interesting.  He wouldn't win by a large margin, but if you were to add 184 votes to his electoral margin, he would nearly have all of the electoral votes.

I cannot imagine these states keeping their agreement in such a case.  The compact is unenforceable.


3.26.19:

Another state has joined this compact, or so I have read.  Eventually, they may have enough states to rig the next election in favor of the Democrats.

However, fairly recently, there were as many as 31 GOP governors. Not to mention, nearly as many of the state legislatures were controlled by the GOP.  If this releases the respective legislatures from any obligation to honor the vote in their own state, what prevents them from voting any way they choose, regardless of the popular vote?  Why have the people vote at all?

In other words, this can backfire on the Democrats, as well not actually solving the problem that they claim they want to solve.

The compact isn't enforceable.  There is no way to take this up in a court of law because the US Constitution forbids any compact between the states.  If the states attempt to enforce it, the SCOTUS can slap it down.

But of course, the SCOTUS can slap down anything  it wants.  Rule of law?  Democracy?  What rule of law?  What democracy?

This has the potential of making the 2000 election look orderly by comparison.  Chaos could be around the corner.

2.3.19:

There is a threat to remove Trump from the ballot in New Jersey.

How can Trump or any GOP candidate have a chance to win the popular vote if millions of votes are denied to him?  What's to prevent other states from refusing to allow a candidate to be on the ballot of their state, if that candidate is of an opposing party?  In other words, they can cheat.

A national popular vote compact between the states won't resolve the issue that they claim to be interested in.  It would only give them the opportunity to rig an outcome in their favor.