Someone please explain this to me?

So the 4 electoral college votes from Maine will go to the National Total Vote winner (which will always be Democrats for the foreseeable future thanks to illegals, etc.)?

So if Maine voters vote 95% for Trump, if Biden wins the National Popular vote, Biden gets the 4 votes?

This can't be right.

if the compact goes into effect, then yes. it won't before 2024 election

Only if enough states to reach 270 agree to it as well, which as of right now, they do not have.

i don't think the compact is ever going to get the number they need to go into effect.

Sixteen states and Washington, D.C. have joined the compact for a total of 205 electoral votes thus far. With Maine, the total of electoral votes increases to 209 61 short of the compact taking effect.

ok thanks.

Isn't this like total BS?

Isn't this changing democracy and 250 years of precedent?

I wonder if this is part of the illegal immigration plan as well

BMX Bandit said:

---

i don't think the compact is ever going to get the number they need to go into effect.

---

Most likely not unless they can flip several Republican states.

That just fundamentally makes no sense, the electoral votes of one state being decided by votes in other states. Flagrantly unconstitutional, but there is no telling how a Supreme Court case would go. It would entirely depend upon who is being denied the presidency and the composition of the court.

Guess they do not understand what a constitutional republic is.

Already has New York and California. Seems unlikely to pick up any other state with a large number of electoral votes.

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

torrid said:

---

That just fundamentally makes no sense, the electoral votes of one state being decided by votes in other states. Flagrantly unconstitutional, but there is no telling how a Supreme Court case would go. It would entirely depend upon who is being denied the presidency and the composition of the court.

---

My concern is who would have standing to challenge it? States are prohibited from forming compacts beween states without permission from Congress. But after the 2020 election when SCOTUS said that Texas and other states did not have standing to challenge what other states had done, that avenue is gone.

Our election laws are a mess.

We have to save Democracy by making sure your vote is changed to the correct vote for the regime

So…the bandwagon vote agreement to bypass the EC. Yeah, it's close but they'd need a couple more big states to commit to giving up their own influence.

It seems stupid to forfeit your own state interests to the national popular vote, and let basically a handful of very populous states dominate politics.

This seems local voter disenfranchisement. I thought the Democrats said they were against this.

This is how States with very few electoral votes attempt to make themselves relevant in Presidential Elections

The Dems/commies will happily piss on the Constitution to stay in power.

Hopefully Trump landslides the pedophile with plenty of ballot stuffing and those states think twice about it.

Central Committee said:

---

The Dems/commies will happily piss on the Constitution to stay in power.

---

This. If you vote Dem, you're either a moron or you'd be happier living in a country where the government determines every important aspect of your life.

Republicans suck. Democrats are in bed with Satan.

This country needs liberty, as the Founders intended, in the worst way.

Just another way of saying the vote of a Mainer is only 3/5 of a citizen elsewhere. Or there abouts, maybe 1/50. Why vote at all. Why engage in the political discourse. What about down ballot candidates? If Dems don't vote because it doesn't matter, the state goes R in one election cycle?

aggiehawg said:

---

torrid said:

---

That just fundamentally makes no sense, the electoral votes of one state being decided by votes in other states. Flagrantly unconstitutional, but there is no telling how a Supreme Court case would go. It would entirely depend upon who is being denied the presidency and the composition of the court.

---

My concern is who would have standing to challenge it? States are prohibited from forming compacts beween states without permission from Congress. But after the 2020 election when SCOTUS said that Texas and other states did not have standing to challenge what other states had done, that avenue is gone.

Our election laws are a mess.

---

Congressional consent is only required when the compact would increase states' political power to the detriment of federal supremacy.

Would this do either one of those things, yet alone both? I'm not so sure it would.



As to the previous post, states can allocate their votes essentially however they want. If the state says they want to allocate the votes according to the national vote, what's unconstitutional about it?

How to disenfranchise all your voters 101.

Quote:

---

Article I
Section 10 Powers Denied States
Clause 3 Acts Requiring Consent of Congress
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.

---

I don't see the "if it's Increases state power to the detriment of federal supremacy" clause. Can you help me out here?

Cromagnum said:

---

How to disenfranchise all your voters 101.

---

I'd say it's a 301 level course.

Intro to Disenfranchisement is a 101 course and includes an overview of ballot box stuffing, fake voter registration, and vote buying with bribes.

Quote:

---

I don't see the "if it's Increases state power to the detriment of federal supremacy" clause. Can you help me out here?

---

if you think no states can make any contracts with one another without congress approval, that is going to shake up the world of college athletics!



its well settled that "the application of the Compact Clause is limited to agreements that are 'directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States." as recently as 1985 by Rhenquist.

I think there is a good argument this national popular vote compact would increase the power of a state, so it would require congressional approval.

but here is the problem with that: congressional approval of a compact between states makes it a federal law. congress has no power over how electors are appointed by states, so does it even have the authority to approve this compact?


another question is, "could a state simply say they are going to appoint the electors from the party that wins the national popular vote without regard to what other states decide?" I think the answer to that is "yes"

aggiejayrod said:

---

Quote:

---

Article I
Section 10 Powers Denied States
Clause 3 Acts Requiring Consent of Congress
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.

---

I don't see the "if it's Increases state power to the detriment of federal supremacy" clause. Can you help me out here?

---

In short, there was a landmark Supreme Court case in the late 1800s where two states made an agreement about their border. SCOTUS said there was no need for Congress to be involved.

It will be a long time before they reach 270, if ever.

Even then, this will no stand up in court due to the compact clause (Article 1, Section 10, clause 3) of the Constitution.

Quote:

---

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.

---

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S10-C3-3-1/ALDE_00013531/

Not only would they need to reach the 270 but they would also need Congress to sign off on it.

Quote:

---

but here is the problem with that: congressional approval of a compact between states makes it a federal law. congress has no power over how electors are appointed by states, so does it even have the authority to approve this compact?

---

If Congress/The Federal Government has no power over it, then it wouldn't be encroaching on federal powers and thus wouldn't require consent.

Quote:

---

If Congress/The Federal Government has no power over it, then it wouldn't be encroaching on federal powers and thus wouldn't require consent.

---

the issue on consent is not if feds have power over it or not

MouthBQ98 said:

---

So…the bandwagon vote agreement to bypass the EC. Yeah, it's close but they'd need a couple more big states to commit to giving up their own influence.

It seems stupid to forfeit your own state interests to the national popular vote, and let basically a handful of very populous states dominate politics.

---

Nothing surprises me with the demtards!

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

If Congress/The Federal Government has no power over it, then it wouldn't be encroaching on federal powers and thus wouldn't require consent.

---

the issue on consent is not if feds have power over it or not

---

Sure it is.

Quote:

---

The prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States...

The compact or agreement will then be within the prohibition of the Constitution, or without it, according as the establishment of the boundary line may lead or not to the increase of the political power or influence of the states affected and thus encroach or not upon the full and free exercise of federal authority.

---

Tennessee v Virginia

torrid said:

---

That just fundamentally makes no sense, the electoral votes of one state being decided by votes in other states. Flagrantly unconstitutional, but there is no telling how a Supreme Court case would go. It would entirely depend upon who is being denied the presidency and the composition of the court.

---

Is it unconstitutional? You have no constitutional right to vote for President. They can (stupidly) use whatever rules they want for deciding how their electors are chosen.

aggiehawg said:

---

torrid said:

---

That just fundamentally makes no sense, the electoral votes of one state being decided by votes in other states. Flagrantly unconstitutional, but there is no telling how a Supreme Court case would go. It would entirely depend upon who is being denied the presidency and the composition of the court.

---

My concern is who would have standing to challenge it? States are prohibited from forming compacts beween states without permission from Congress. But after the 2020 election when SCOTUS said that Texas and other states did not have standing to challenge what other states had done, that avenue is gone.

Our election laws are a mess.

---

...and it appears that a lot of those laws were not being enforced in the blue states in the 2020/2022 elections at all.

No surprise that the National Popular Vote was put forth by Jamie Raskin back in 2007 when he was a Maryland state senator but his reasoning seems wonky to me. Makes no sense.

Quote:

---

I happened upon it by chance, tracking down some details for a blog I wrote yesterday on the status of the National Popular Vote movementa looming "checkmate" if we don't wake upand discovered that once upon a time, when Maryland's Jamie Raskin was just a freshman state-level lawmaker, he'd hoped that the legislation he "sponsored" would incite an "insurrection" across the country. Here's the story, via a rather old article at NBC News:

Quote:

---

State Sen. Jamie Raskin, a law professor and sponsor of the idea, said Maryland is largely ignored by presidential candidates during campaigns, because they assume the Democratic state will vote for the Democratic candidate.

Raskin, a Democrat, said he hoped Maryland's support for the idea will start a national discussion and 'kick off an insurrection among spectator states - the states that are completely bypassed and sidelined' during presidential campaigns.

'Going by the national popular vote will reawaken politics in every part of the country,' Raskin said.

---

(For context, Raskin was referring to Maryland becoming the first state to pass NPV legislation, which is one facet of a newer movement to de facto abolish the Electoral College by subverting it at the state levelfor more on that, I urge you to read my essay, found here.)

---

Does anyone really think NPV will result in more campaigning across all 50 states? I don't.

Oops, forgot the LINK

Yes. They cheat. They're always cheating, they're always trying to figure out ways to cheat and they will always cheat. They're ****ing cheaters.

DDub74 said:

---

ok thanks.

Isn't this like total BS?

Isn't this changing democracy and 250 years of precedent?

I wonder if this is part of the illegal immigration plan as well

---

It will -- not hyperbole -- initiate a string of secessions.

It's bad enough that Texas is subjected to an executive branch of progressives in roughly 12 out of 24 years,

If that number shifted to zero out of 24 with no potential for ever ending, it'd be over.