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.
I believe, like many others (I'm not a lawyer) the SCOTUS will answer that with a "no you can't". My cloudy crystal ball told me this.
While the 538 electors of the Electoral College collectively determine who wins U.S. Presidential and Vice Presidential elections, each state legislature has the ability to determine how its constitutionally-mandated electoral votes (equal to its total Congressional representation) are assigned to specific candidates.
As has been pointed out in a previous thread by a poster smarter than me, the NPVIC would create some very sticky wickets.
Suppose a state (say FL) voted to join the NPVIC and throw their electoral votes to whichever candidate won the popular vote. But then a candidate (say Bernie) wins the popular vote and the R-controlled FL legislature is not happy. Shortly after the Nov. election they vote to rescind their previous vote for NPVIC, throwing their electoral votes back to the R-candidate who won the FL popular vote. This puts the R-candidate over 270, and Bernie under 270.
Is Bernie now president, or not? And is this a good system to adopt?
As has been pointed out in a previous thread by a poster smarter than me, the NPVIC would create some very sticky wickets.
Suppose a state (say FL) voted to join the NPVIC and throw their electoral votes to whichever candidate won the popular vote. But then a candidate (say Bernie) wins the popular vote and the R-controlled FL legislature is not happy. Shortly after the Nov. election they vote to rescind their previous vote for NPVIC, throwing their electoral votes back to the R-candidate who won the FL popular vote. This puts the R-candidate over 270, and Bernie under 270.
Is Bernie now president, or not? And is this a good system to adopt?
Election is over. You can't retroactively change an election.
Election is over. You can't retroactively change an election.
Based on what? The Constitution gives the states the right to determine distribution of their electoral votes, right? That's the whole basis of NPVIC. Where does it say it can't be changed retroactively?
Based on what? The Constitution gives the states the right to determine distribution of their electoral votes, right? That's the whole basis of NPVIC. Where does it say it can't be changed retroactively?
Could it be that the framers set up the EC as part of an elaborate system of checks and balances? Understanding basics of our constitutional republic is simple. Why do you not get {understand} how this country was founded, why as a republic we have thrived, peacefully transferred power 45 times?
Oh look, yet another person who (falsely) thinks the EC is somehow fundamental to what a republic is (hint: it isn't).
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.
