Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This would be a pact between states where they agree to award all of their electoral college votes based on the national popular vote winner. The number of states is irrelevant, they only need enough states that add up to 270 electoral college votes thus making the other electoral votes moot.
This pact is comprised of Democratic leaning states. They would not want to go below that 270 threshold because it's unlikely they would gain anything but would risk losing their electoral college votes to the national popular vote if it goes to the other party.
I thought you were talking about changing the constitution to eliminate the EC. 33 states for that.
What you are proposing would lead to massive riots and the breakup of the U.S.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,969 posts, read 25,563,870 times
Reputation: 12193
Democrats have not recognized until now how they are out of power at almost every level. 26 states have a GOP governor and 2 GOP controlled legislatures. Democrats have 6 such states. Even if Hillary won a constitutional amendment of any kind would be undoable. That's what's so stupid about the DNC's decision to only go after unmarried White women and minorities: you are giving up the vast majority of local races. The only thing you can win with that coalition is the White House and thus Supreme Court. It effects the makeup of the federal house because congressional districts are drawn up by state legislatures, in 26 states there is no check and balance to prevent gerrymandering.
I thought you were talking about changing the constitution to eliminate the EC. 33 states for that.
What Boxer is proposing is an amendment AFAIK, this pact is a whole other deal.
FYI it's not 33 states, it's 38. A 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress can put an amendment on the table. It's not been used for amendments but the other mechanism is for 2/3 of states to call for a Constitutional Convention to put it on the table. It does not become law unless 38 states ratify.
Little bit of trivia, once proposed they apparently never die. The balanced Budget Amendment for example has been bouncing around for decades.
Quote:
What you are proposing would lead to massive riots and the breakup of the U.S.
It's not what I'm proposing and it's apparently perfectly legitimate since it's up to a State to decide how those electoral votes are used. For example Maine splits them by district. This is simply an agreement between multiple states to cast their electoral votes according to the popular vote, that would require the support of the states government and the people that elected them. In other words there is no funny business going on here.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their respective electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president, and it will come into effect only when it will guarantee that outcome.[2][3]
It's very unlikely they would be able to hit 270, PA for example which they have listed as legislation pending has overwhelming majority of control by Republicans that is large enough to even override vetos.
If 21 states decided to conspire to get around the rules of the election, and declare Hillary Clinton the winner.... which is apparently what you are proposing..... there would be riots.
If 21 states decided to conspire to get around the rules of the election, and declare Hillary Clinton the winner.... which is apparently what you are proposing..... there would be riots.
Yeah, that would be worse than the demonstrations of today against King Trump. So wonderful that
Trump is going to take us back 50 or more years to the "good old Days." There is a Constitution, he can't tear us completely apart, because of his bias, hatred views.
Seems like this years rotten campaign season ended with a selection not an election. Sad time for America. IMO
I am trying to be optimistic; but with his choice of his close advisors it's beginning to look like the bitter, scary 60's all over again..............and why????
Yeah, that would be worse than the demonstrations of today against King Trump. So wonderful that
Trump is going to take us back 50 or more years to the "good old Days." There is a Constitution, he can't tear us completely apart, because of his bias, hatred views.
Seems like this years rotten campaign season ended with a selection not an election. Sad time for America. IMO
I am trying to be optimistic; but with his choice of his close advisors it's beginning to look like the bitter, scary 60's all over again..............and why????
You need to calm down.
Trump isn't a right wing fanatic. At the core he is an independent and unpredictable candidate and president. His decisions will sometimes please the right, sometimes please the left. Often they will please the middle class taxpayer who goes to work every day. Apparently there were enough of those people remaining, to put him into power.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
