11 Democrat states have formed a pact to sabotage the Electoral College

[ChrisL]

Speaking of "my area," some interesting factoids that a lot probably don't know about Massachusetts.

The state was politically dominated by Federalists until the mid-1820s, a much longer period than in other states. From then until the 1850s, it was dominated by the Whig Party, which presented a socially liberal but pro-business agenda, against a fractured Democratic Party and occasional single-issue third parties. In 1850, the Democrats made common cause with the abolitionist Free Soil Party to gain control of both the governor's seat and the state legislature for the first time. This coalition did not last, and the existing party structures were effectively wiped out by the 1853 landslide victory of the Know Nothing movement, which enacted major reform legislation during its three years in power. The Republican Party was organized in 1854, and came to power in 1857. It would dominate the state's politics until the 1930s, first as the reform party opposed to slavery, then as a pro-business, generally anti-labor and temperance-oriented party. The reorganized Democratic Party remained largely ineffective during this time, typically gaining power only when the Republicans overreached on issues such as temperance.

 

[BlindBoo]

Hillary won the "popular vote" because of California and New York, two very large states with a large population. She didn't do so well in MANY other states.

And Rump didn't do well in California, New York (his own state) or your region.

--- What's your point?

My point is, California and New York don't "call" the elections as far as the winner or loser and screw all the other states. Lol. That is not how America works.

It will if enough states join the pact.

 

[g5000]

A government that gives away its right to select electors to people outside the State doesn't seem very republican to me.

The government (specifically, the legislature) can select electors however it chooses to, according to the Constitution. However it is done, why does that make the state government no longer a republican form of government? The legislators are the representatives, and in choosing electors, they are using the power granted to them as representatives. The legislators are still elected to represent the people of the state.

I just don't think arguing that choosing electors based on the national vote prevents a state from being a republican form of government would be compelling enough to prevent it.

The founders instituted the electoral college because they wanted each state to be equally represented in federal matters. This is pretty easy concept to understand. Otherwise, some states would be completely left out of any federal decision making processes. This applies to election processes as well.

First, the states are not equally represented. California gets more electors than Texas, which gets more electors than Michigan, which gets more electors than Montana. The representation is supposed to be proportional, not equal.

Second, that doesn't change the fact that the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to choose electors however they see fit. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct..." As long as the method does not violate some other portion of the Constitution (as martybegan has argued this national popular vote system does), the state legislatures can pick electors however they want.

I'm not arguing that the EC should be abolished here. I'm just pointing out that Article 2, Section 1 gives state legislatures the power to pick electors using whatever method they decide is best. States haven't always had their citizens vote when choosing electors, and electors are not bound by the Constitution or federal law to vote in accordance with the results of state elections.

It is so that EACH STATE has equal representation when it comes to federal matters, including presidential elections. Period.

So California's 55 electors have equal weight in a presidential election as Montana's 3 electors?

Actually, Montana's 3 electors carry more weight than California's 55.

There are only one million people in Montana, represented by 3 electors.

If that ratio was used in California, with a population of 40 million, they would be entitled to 120 electors.

 

[ChrisL]

A government that gives away its right to select electors to people outside the State doesn't seem very republican to me.

The government (specifically, the legislature) can select electors however it chooses to, according to the Constitution. However it is done, why does that make the state government no longer a republican form of government? The legislators are the representatives, and in choosing electors, they are using the power granted to them as representatives. The legislators are still elected to represent the people of the state.

I just don't think arguing that choosing electors based on the national vote prevents a state from being a republican form of government would be compelling enough to prevent it.

The founders instituted the electoral college because they wanted each state to be equally represented in federal matters. This is pretty easy concept to understand. Otherwise, some states would be completely left out of any federal decision making processes. This applies to election processes as well.

First, the states are not equally represented. California gets more electors than Texas, which gets more electors than Michigan, which gets more electors than Montana. The representation is supposed to be proportional, not equal.

Second, that doesn't change the fact that the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to choose electors however they see fit. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct..." As long as the method does not violate some other portion of the Constitution (as martybegan has argued this national popular vote system does), the state legislatures can pick electors however they want.

I'm not arguing that the EC should be abolished here. I'm just pointing out that Article 2, Section 1 gives state legislatures the power to pick electors using whatever method they decide is best. States haven't always had their citizens vote when choosing electors, and electors are not bound by the Constitution or federal law to vote in accordance with the results of state elections.

It is so that EACH STATE has equal representation when it comes to federal matters, including presidential elections. Period.

So California's 55 electors have equal weight in a presidential election as Montana's 3 electors?

Well, it equals out a lot more than if they were to go by popular vote alone. Each state is guaranteed to have some representation when it comes to federal matters, regardless of the geographic square miles it contains.

 

[Pogo]

Then propose an amendment to the Constitution to change the rules.

The method proposed above is probably unconstitutional.

Doesn't the Constitution give the States the right to choose the way it's electors are selected?

It's it a double edged sword anyway?

Absolutely

If states want to defer to the national popular vote, they can

The contortions you idiots are going through to push your BS is funny as hell to watch...

Do you really think you can just take away citizens rights, especially the right to vote by your fiat wish? This is precisely why we have a second amendment. The founders were right, they gave us a republic, if were smart enough to keep it..

The Electoral College takes away your right to vote. If you voted for the loser in your state, that vote did not count

This way, your vote counts towards the candidate of your choice regardless of how others in your state voted

By that logic any vote for the loser in an election doesn't count.

Try again.

Sorry, that doesn't work. It would work if voters were voting for President of the State. But they're not. If a state has an apportionment of, say, 13 EVs, and let's say the pop vote is close (so-called "battleground state") but in the end Clinton prevails, then by legitimate representative standards Clinton should get 7 and Rump 6. But the way it actually works Clinton got 13 and Rump got (Rudy Giuliani voice) ZEEERO. What then was the point of anyone going out to vote for Rump? It was a complete waste of time. Suppose you went out for groceries, paid for your purchases --- and then left the bags in the store. What was the point?

And one of the detriments of this corrupt system is that many of us can see how this works and the futility thereof, and don't bother to vote at all, which is why we have one of the worst election day participation rates in the world. Because what's the point?

 

[martybegan]

Have you read Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1?

Each State is guaranteed a republican form of government, and using a dart board to select electors hardly seems republican.

I don't think that how electors are chosen has an effect on whether a state has a republican government.

A government that gives away its right to select electors to people outside the State doesn't seem very republican to me.

The government (specifically, the legislature) can select electors however it chooses to, according to the Constitution. However it is done, why does that make the state government no longer a republican form of government? The legislators are the representatives, and in choosing electors, they are using the power granted to them as representatives. The legislators are still elected to represent the people of the state.

I just don't think arguing that choosing electors based on the national vote prevents a state from being a republican form of government would be compelling enough to prevent it.

How about if the legislators make a law saying all electors, no matter what happens in the State-wide vote, always go to Party X?

That would suck...but be perfectly Constitutional. That's just the way the system is set up. I imagine the idea is that, should a state legislature make such a choice, they would then be voted out of office and someone new elected, who would then change things to something the voters prefer.

I think the SC, regardless of who's on it, would see that violating Art 4, Sec, 4, Clause 1.

 

[ChrisL]

Hillary won the "popular vote" because of California and New York, two very large states with a large population. She didn't do so well in MANY other states.

National popular vote arguments are really pretty silly when talking about Electoral College elections. The candidates would almost surely campaign differently if the presidency were decided by the popular vote, so there is no way to know what the results might have been if the election had been set up that way. Maybe Trump would have won if the election had been by popular vote anyway.

I understand the frustration when a candidate wins an election without winning the popular vote, but I don't like when people make it seem as if those results would have been the same if there were no Electoral College.

Oh, I agree 100%. Most of the people who are complaining about it are only complaining because, well, Trump. Lol.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

The government (specifically, the legislature) can select electors however it chooses to, according to the Constitution. However it is done, why does that make the state government no longer a republican form of government? The legislators are the representatives, and in choosing electors, they are using the power granted to them as representatives. The legislators are still elected to represent the people of the state.

I just don't think arguing that choosing electors based on the national vote prevents a state from being a republican form of government would be compelling enough to prevent it.

The founders instituted the electoral college because they wanted each state to be equally represented in federal matters. This is pretty easy concept to understand. Otherwise, some states would be completely left out of any federal decision making processes. This applies to election processes as well.

First, the states are not equally represented. California gets more electors than Texas, which gets more electors than Michigan, which gets more electors than Montana. The representation is supposed to be proportional, not equal.

Second, that doesn't change the fact that the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to choose electors however they see fit. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct..." As long as the method does not violate some other portion of the Constitution (as martybegan has argued this national popular vote system does), the state legislatures can pick electors however they want.

I'm not arguing that the EC should be abolished here. I'm just pointing out that Article 2, Section 1 gives state legislatures the power to pick electors using whatever method they decide is best. States haven't always had their citizens vote when choosing electors, and electors are not bound by the Constitution or federal law to vote in accordance with the results of state elections.

It is so that EACH STATE has equal representation when it comes to federal matters, including presidential elections. Period.

So California's 55 electors have equal weight in a presidential election as Montana's 3 electors?

Well, it equals out a lot more than if they were to go by popular vote alone. Each state is guaranteed to have some representation when it comes to federal matters, regardless of the geographic square miles it contains.

so what are these blue states going to do? create a few million people and decide how many more electoral votes they wanna add to their current total? shouldnt Illinois knock off about 5 electoral votes being everyone is moving out?

 

[martybegan]

The state must represent their constituency. They can proportionality distribute their college votes by the populace within their state or they can give them all to the winner of the popular vote WITHIN THEIR STATE, but they can not give their votes away due to voting in other states.. This violates FEC rules..

Really. What FEC rule would this be?

In fact, states are not required to hold an election at all. All they have to do is choose electors, and how they choose said electors is entirely up to that state. Show us how that's not the case.

And if i was a voter in one of those states they would find themselves in court defending that disenfranchisement of my right to vote.

Presumably you've already been in court on the same complaint every time your state gave its entire electoral vote to a candy you voted against then, correct? Good for you, hope you get results someday..

There presumably some limits to how undemocratic a States Elector selection can be.

Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 guarantees a Republican form of government for each State, and if you add the whole 14th amendment thing, i doubt the governor could just pick electors whilly nilly.

Still the State does have some latitude, just not enough latitude, in my opinion, to select their electors based on mostly the votes of people outside the State.

I'd be curious to see how the SCOTUS would rule on the issue.

Article 4 Section 4 guarantees each state a Republican form of government. That is in no way harmed by having EC electors not voted on; the government is still representational and has a chief of state which is not a king. Add in the explicit choice given to state legislatures in how electors are chosen, and I don't know if there's any ground to prevent a state from doing just about whatever they want to choose electors, so long as the legislature makes the decision in accordance with that state's laws.

With the 14th amendment, while people (men, specifically, but I would think women also are included now) are guaranteed the right to vote at any election of presidential or vice presidential electors, I think that if the legislature gets rid of elections, that becomes moot.

I can't see any state legislature doing away with some form of voting being the way electors are chosen, but they do seem to have that right per the Constitution.

If you had the legislators directly selecting electors, you might be able to get away with it, but by signing legislation like this you are taking your own votes and diluting them with votes outside the state, thus basically making any of your votes moot.

Someone else deciding the outcome of your own election is decidedly un-republican.

again, switch "the popular vote winner" with "the candidate from party X" and you see how pretty daft the whole concept is.

And again at the risk of noting the same thing over and over to deaf ears, diluting votes with other contrary votes is ALREADY THE WAY IT'S DONE every time your state or mine or anybody else's goes to Congress and tells the lie that literally everybody in that state voted for the Red or Blue candidate, because that kind of unanimous vote has never happened anywhere ever. So the un-republicanism is not only already here, it has a way long and shoddy history.

There's no reason for any voter in any locked-red or locked-blue state to go vote at all. They can vote with their state, vote against their state, vote for some third party or stay home and play sudoku and all four produce exactly the same result. So it's a bit late to be suddenly stat noticing what's been there the whole time. Or else a bit selective.

Or just accepting the system as it is.

It's not being deaf, it's you not being able to convince me.

 

[martybegan]

Even if the people in 40 of those 50 States don't want it?

Who says they don’t want it?

Say the 10 largest states want a plastic bag ban. They can pass it themselves just fine, but they want to be "efficient" and try to pass it at the federal level.

Now say 40 States don't want to do it, but when you make your changes you want, now those 10 populous States can force their wants on the other 40 that want nothing to do with it.

Get it yet?

that's why we have the Senate....no matter what, the 10 largest populated states only have 20 senators, the 40 smaller have 80....

The Senate protects the less populated states and gives them their power....

And having the Presidency decided the way we do it now gives another layer of protection.

I'm an Engineer, and we are fans of redundancy.

What Care describes there isn't "redundancy". It's "inflation".

Small states are protected two ways, that's redundancy.

 

[martybegan]

The law is probably unconstitutional because it invalidates the votes of someone in a State via votes outside of a State.

That violates Article 4, Section 4, clause 1's guarantee of a republican form of government for each State.

Every time a state practices the infamous WTA unanimous bullshit that state is invalidating the votes of all of ITS OWN citizens who voted against that "unanimous" bulllshit. So that ship sailed long ago.

And again, I already pointed this out. Yet here it is sailing back in. If this could be held to be a violation, then we have literally hundreds if not thousands of violation cases going back centuries. If you can adequately demonstrate to SCOTUS that those elections were invalid, again more power to you.

I think the proposed law fails in the fact that is completely turns over the EV's of a State to voters OUTSIDE of the State, as opposed to nullifying the votes of the losing in-state candidate's voters.

To me the first does not meet the requirement of "Republican" form of government, but the second does.

If your vote is nullified by either system --- what the hell difference does it make whether it was voters inside or outside your state that nullified it?

Because at least when it happens from inside, you did have a vote that could impact the outcome. When you sell your votes to people outside your State, you pretty much give that up entirely.

Once AGAIN, the Constitution only requires that each state send X number of electors, and how that state selects its electors, whether it's based on its own vote, the country's vote, a blindfolded random citizen throwing darts or a panel of astrologers reading tea leaves, the Constitution doesn't care. So Constitutionally there's no difference. Throw in the fact that a given state's electors can ignore a vote from inside or outside and vote for Douglas Spotted Eagle, and then tell us how much "impact" you ever had.

Have you read Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1?

Each State is guaranteed a republican form of government, and using a dart board to select electors hardly seems republican.

Electing a President (or selecting the electors to vote in the EC) doesn't alter the States form of government does it?

How they select electors is part of their form of government.

 

[ChrisL]

I highly doubt that small states are going to give up their representation when it comes to federal matters because some are angry that Hillary isn't the POTUS.

 

[Pogo]

Hate to rain on anyone's parade, but Trump would have won the Popular Vote, had the election been decided by popular vote.

Democrats point to the total number of HRC votes vs Trump votes in the 2016 election to "prove" that HRC would have won if the race had been decided by popular vote. But this ignores reality.

If the Constitution had been changed, say, two years ago, and the entire primary season and general election season had been run on the basis of a popular vote, the entire process would have played out differently. NO CANDIDATE would have spent as much as 15 minutes in Iowa or New Hampshire, but instead they would have focused on high population areas that promised the best return for time and money spent. It is absolutely unknowable who would have gotten the nomination of either party, but one suspects that both Trump and HRC would have been quickly eliminated because of their respective "negatives." It is likely that the nominees would have been popular politicians from one of the most populous states.

Democrats believe in their hearts that they are in the majority, nation wide, but in a national popular vote, the personalities of the individual candidates would "trump" political factors, and the candidates that Democrats THINK are their best representatives are generally leftist twits with no general appeal (HRC, Biden, Warren, Sanders). Maybe the same thing is true on the Right. Nobody knows, because we have never had such an election.

And footnotally on the "popular vote" of 2016, Democrats never consider the overwhelming number of Republicans/Conservatives in California who did not even bother to vote because of the pre-destination of an HRC win at the top of the ticket, and the TWO DEMOCRATS running against one another in the Senate. Why would any California Republican waste his time to vote? The same phenomenon would hold for New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, and several other Dem-controlled states. EVEN IN 2016, an HRC victory was not obvious, based on the actual results.

As The Donald has already said...if you want to hold the next Presidential election based on popular vote, bring it on. He will win again, regardless.

A mathematical difference of somewhere around three million votes proves this fantasy a fantasy. Clinton was the choice of more voters than anyone else was, and there's nothing you can do about that by pretending otherwise, not even if you click your heels together and go "there's no place like home".

And just a point of correction, Sanders isn't a Democrat. Never has been.

 

[martybegan]

Doesn't the Constitution give the States the right to choose the way it's electors are selected?

It's it a double edged sword anyway?

Absolutely

If states want to defer to the national popular vote, they can

The contortions you idiots are going through to push your BS is funny as hell to watch...

Do you really think you can just take away citizens rights, especially the right to vote by your fiat wish? This is precisely why we have a second amendment. The founders were right, they gave us a republic, if were smart enough to keep it..

The Electoral College takes away your right to vote. If you voted for the loser in your state, that vote did not count

This way, your vote counts towards the candidate of your choice regardless of how others in your state voted

By that logic any vote for the loser in an election doesn't count.

Try again.

Sorry, that doesn't work. It would work if voters were voting for President of the State. But they're not. If a state has an apportionment of, say, 13 EVs, and let's say the pop vote is close (so-called "battleground state") but in the end Clinton prevails, then by legitimate representative standards Clinton should get 7 and Rump 6. But the way it actually works Clinton got 13 and Rump got (Rudy Giuliani voice) ZEEERO. What then was the point of anyone going out to vote for Rump? It was a complete waste of time. Suppose you went out for groceries, paid for your purchases --- and then left the bags in the store. What was the point?

And one of the detriments of this corrupt system is that many of us can see how this works and the futility thereof, and don't bother to vote at all, which is why we have one of the worst election day participation rates in the world. Because what's the point?

The reason to go out is get those 13 votes for Trump.

Again, the real "fair" way to do it and still keep the flavor of the EC is to give each state's 2 Senate based EV's based on statewide vote, and the others based on Congressional districts.

 

[Montrovant]

I don't think that how electors are chosen has an effect on whether a state has a republican government.

A government that gives away its right to select electors to people outside the State doesn't seem very republican to me.

The government (specifically, the legislature) can select electors however it chooses to, according to the Constitution. However it is done, why does that make the state government no longer a republican form of government? The legislators are the representatives, and in choosing electors, they are using the power granted to them as representatives. The legislators are still elected to represent the people of the state.

I just don't think arguing that choosing electors based on the national vote prevents a state from being a republican form of government would be compelling enough to prevent it.

The founders instituted the electoral college because they wanted each state to be equally represented in federal matters. This is pretty easy concept to understand. Otherwise, some states would be completely left out of any federal decision making processes. This applies to election processes as well.

First, the states are not equally represented. California gets more electors than Texas, which gets more electors than Michigan, which gets more electors than Montana. The representation is supposed to be proportional, not equal.

Second, that doesn't change the fact that the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to choose electors however they see fit. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct..." As long as the method does not violate some other portion of the Constitution (as martybegan has argued this national popular vote system does), the state legislatures can pick electors however they want.

I'm not arguing that the EC should be abolished here. I'm just pointing out that Article 2, Section 1 gives state legislatures the power to pick electors using whatever method they decide is best. States haven't always had their citizens vote when choosing electors, and electors are not bound by the Constitution or federal law to vote in accordance with the results of state elections.

It is so that EACH STATE has equal representation when it comes to federal matters, including presidential elections. Period.

Let me apologize, I posted too quickly and wrote something incorrect. As I said in the edit I added, the electors from the House are proportional. It's true that the states are represented equally in the EC from the Senate. That leaves a system which is somewhere in between: far from equal representation, but not truly proportional, either.

 

[Pogo]

The states that are going along with the popular vote are giving up their sovereignty with regards to electing a President. It is just stupid, and a Democrat Partisan attempt to be a one party Democrat country. It won't work.

If Rump had won the national popular vote and Connecticut voted for Clinton (as it did) then under this system Connecticut would have cast its EVs for Rump. If you could, y'know, go ahead and tell the class how that perpetuates a "one party Democrat country", that'd be great..

 

[Montrovant]

The government (specifically, the legislature) can select electors however it chooses to, according to the Constitution. However it is done, why does that make the state government no longer a republican form of government? The legislators are the representatives, and in choosing electors, they are using the power granted to them as representatives. The legislators are still elected to represent the people of the state.

I just don't think arguing that choosing electors based on the national vote prevents a state from being a republican form of government would be compelling enough to prevent it.

The founders instituted the electoral college because they wanted each state to be equally represented in federal matters. This is pretty easy concept to understand. Otherwise, some states would be completely left out of any federal decision making processes. This applies to election processes as well.

First, the states are not equally represented. California gets more electors than Texas, which gets more electors than Michigan, which gets more electors than Montana. The representation is supposed to be proportional, not equal.

Second, that doesn't change the fact that the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to choose electors however they see fit. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct..." As long as the method does not violate some other portion of the Constitution (as martybegan has argued this national popular vote system does), the state legislatures can pick electors however they want.

I'm not arguing that the EC should be abolished here. I'm just pointing out that Article 2, Section 1 gives state legislatures the power to pick electors using whatever method they decide is best. States haven't always had their citizens vote when choosing electors, and electors are not bound by the Constitution or federal law to vote in accordance with the results of state elections.

It is so that EACH STATE has equal representation when it comes to federal matters, including presidential elections. Period.

So California's 55 electors have equal weight in a presidential election as Montana's 3 electors?

Actually, Montana's 3 electors carry more weight than California's 55.

There are only one million people in Montana, represented by 3 electors.

If that ratio was used in California, with a population of 40 million, they would be entitled to 120 electors.

Per elector, sure. Overall, not so much.

 

[ChrisL]

A government that gives away its right to select electors to people outside the State doesn't seem very republican to me.

The government (specifically, the legislature) can select electors however it chooses to, according to the Constitution. However it is done, why does that make the state government no longer a republican form of government? The legislators are the representatives, and in choosing electors, they are using the power granted to them as representatives. The legislators are still elected to represent the people of the state.

I just don't think arguing that choosing electors based on the national vote prevents a state from being a republican form of government would be compelling enough to prevent it.

The founders instituted the electoral college because they wanted each state to be equally represented in federal matters. This is pretty easy concept to understand. Otherwise, some states would be completely left out of any federal decision making processes. This applies to election processes as well.

First, the states are not equally represented. California gets more electors than Texas, which gets more electors than Michigan, which gets more electors than Montana. The representation is supposed to be proportional, not equal.

Second, that doesn't change the fact that the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to choose electors however they see fit. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct..." As long as the method does not violate some other portion of the Constitution (as martybegan has argued this national popular vote system does), the state legislatures can pick electors however they want.

I'm not arguing that the EC should be abolished here. I'm just pointing out that Article 2, Section 1 gives state legislatures the power to pick electors using whatever method they decide is best. States haven't always had their citizens vote when choosing electors, and electors are not bound by the Constitution or federal law to vote in accordance with the results of state elections.

It is so that EACH STATE has equal representation when it comes to federal matters, including presidential elections. Period.

Let me apologize, I posted too quickly and wrote something incorrect. As I said in the edit I added, the electors from the House are proportional. It's true that the states are represented equally in the EC from the Senate. That leaves a system which is somewhere in between: far from equal representation, but not truly proportional, either.

Yet more proportional than if we were to allow the two largest states to elect a POTUS, correct?

 

[Montrovant]

The government (specifically, the legislature) can select electors however it chooses to, according to the Constitution. However it is done, why does that make the state government no longer a republican form of government? The legislators are the representatives, and in choosing electors, they are using the power granted to them as representatives. The legislators are still elected to represent the people of the state.

I just don't think arguing that choosing electors based on the national vote prevents a state from being a republican form of government would be compelling enough to prevent it.

The founders instituted the electoral college because they wanted each state to be equally represented in federal matters. This is pretty easy concept to understand. Otherwise, some states would be completely left out of any federal decision making processes. This applies to election processes as well.

First, the states are not equally represented. California gets more electors than Texas, which gets more electors than Michigan, which gets more electors than Montana. The representation is supposed to be proportional, not equal.

Second, that doesn't change the fact that the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to choose electors however they see fit. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct..." As long as the method does not violate some other portion of the Constitution (as martybegan has argued this national popular vote system does), the state legislatures can pick electors however they want.

I'm not arguing that the EC should be abolished here. I'm just pointing out that Article 2, Section 1 gives state legislatures the power to pick electors using whatever method they decide is best. States haven't always had their citizens vote when choosing electors, and electors are not bound by the Constitution or federal law to vote in accordance with the results of state elections.

It is so that EACH STATE has equal representation when it comes to federal matters, including presidential elections. Period.

So California's 55 electors have equal weight in a presidential election as Montana's 3 electors?

Well, it equals out a lot more than if they were to go by popular vote alone. Each state is guaranteed to have some representation when it comes to federal matters, regardless of the geographic square miles it contains.

Does it really, though? With most states having a winner-takes-all system for electors, doesn't the representation actually get skewed even more? For example, Trump got somewhere around 31% of the votes in California, but Clinton got all 55 electors. On the other end, Clinton got about 43% of the vote in Texas, but Trump got all 38 electors.

There have only been 5 times where a president was elected without winning the popular vote. In only 4 of those elections did the president get enough electors to win (John Quincy Adams was selected by the House of Representatives). Just as arguing that a candidate would have won if an election used a popular vote seems silly, arguing that a couple of states will decide every election with a popular vote seems silly. Almost every election has gone the way the popular vote ended up, anyway.

There are pros and cons to each of the systems in question. I think I would prefer more states to use systems that select electors proportionately based on voting.

 

[Pogo]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

So, why should the people of Connecticut vote if the Electoral Votes go to whoever wins the national popular vote?

Precisely, thank you There it is, the glaring flaw. Voters in Connecticut or any other 'locked' state are already disenfranchised in that regardless what any of them want, their state is voting for (in this case) whoever the Blue candidate is. So all this does is transfer that mob rule from the state level to the federal, saying "we'll go with whatever everybody else says", and that voter STILL has no say.