The argument against the compact is that it disenfranchises voters. I would agree. Why hold a vote, and then not honor it? Seems like a capricious thing to me. It is unenforceable, because no state can sue another state for how it sets up its electoral votes.
A state can do what it likes as long as it is consistent with the law before and after the election.
If they want to hand their electoral votes to a Democrat, then let their respective legislatures decide this before the election is held. If this is done, then they are just pretending to have an election, and pretending to let the voters decide. Would voters even show up if it didn't matter how they voted?
One way to have an interstate compact is to get Congress to go along. Not likely. This could only happen if there is a big majority in the Senate, and one party holds both houses and the Presidency.
In practice, this compact will invite a controversy. Wouldn't surprise me if it ended up in the House of Representatives, and the Vice Presidency will end up in the Senate. It will make the election of 2000 seem tame in comparison.
Weird outcomes could prevail. If the House cannot choose the POTUS, then the Senate just might. Here's how: The 12th Amendment reworked the method of electing the POTUS. If the House cannot get a majority, then the Vice President will be President. So, if the Senate can come up with a new vice President, then that person will be elevated to President. Also, each state delegation has only one vote apiece. That means a majority of delegations wins the presidency. In other words, you can control the House in numbers, but in the number of state delegations, you could be a minority. The Democrats could put themselves in a position where they would still lose the election even with this compact. That's because at present, they may control only a minority of delegations.
No comments:
Post a Comment