- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Virginia signs national popular vote bill into law, joining interstate compact with 17 other states and District of Columbia
A national majority vote for president is one step closer to reality after the Virginia governor, Abigail Spanberger, signed the national popular vote bill into law, joining an interstate compact with 17 other states and the District of Columbia.
Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state. The compact takes effect when states representing a majority of electoral votes – 270 of 538 – pass the legislation and thus would determine the winner of the presidential contest. With Virginia, the compact now has 222 electors.
Every state that has so far enacted the compact has Democratic electoral majorities, including California, New York and Illinois. But legislation has been introduced in enough states to reach the 270-elector threshold, including swing states like Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
You must log in or # to comment.
I hope it accounts for what happens if those States’ votes equal/exceed 270 at one time but then electoral fuckery occurs and they drop below that number due to their bullshit census tallies. Because we all know Repubs will pull it in a heartbeat.
Umm… hold on, did something good just happen?
Per the description in the post.
The compact takes effect when states representing a majority of electoral votes – 270 of 538 – pass the legislation and thus would determine the winner of the presidential contest. With Virginia, the compact now has 222 electors.
In other words, they need additional states with a combined total of at least 48 electoral votes to pass the legislation in order for it to take effect. So they’re closer, but nothing has happened quite yet.
I’m not sure it’s actually a good thing for electors to go against their voters but it’s a workaround that may make things better by ensuring the winner is the actual overall popular vote winner
Not yet, but it’s getting closer to actually happening. It is at a minimum not a bad thing.
Right? I’m so thrown off.
Not necessarily good or bad. There’s nothing binding here, just based on good faith reporting. Best case scenario would be all blue states and a few less-red swing states signing on, effectively disenfranchising red states.
Of course I’d bet any amount of money that SCOTUS would rule that a plan like this can’t leave out any state’s reported result. From there it’s a simple step to say “Texas and Florida are reporting 99% votes for Trump”, allowing their large populations to rig the results.
Nobody gets disenfranchised. Rather this compact enables the radical idea of “one person, one vote”.
My vote doesn’t matter as I’m from a state that has been democratic since I was born.
well make sure it stays that way.
1990s problems require 1990s solutions.
Like, whatever
Then up comes zaphor and I’m like “yo zaphor, what’s up?” and he’s like “Nothing.” And I’m like “that’s cool.”
Am I reading this correctly, 17 States have already banded together to end first-past-the-post voting for POTUS?
It does not end first past the post voting. If it went into effect it would essentially mean that the popular vote would determine the outcome of the presidential election, by forcing the electoral college results to match. The popular vote would still be first past the post.
If this was ever going to pass, it would be during this time.
I’d love it so much if this were the case.
This compact is extremely unlikely to ever be enforceable. The ensuing court cases would make 2000 seem minor.
The Constitution gives the power to the states to appoint and direct their electors.
Interstate compacts require congressional approval. This one doesn’t have that. There’s also a good argument that a state giving all it’s votes to someone the state didn’t vote for in the majority violates the rights of it’s citizens to a republican form of government.
Supreme Court: “Not like that.”
States determine their election laws. Including how they apportion electoral college electors. I’m not sure what the counter-argument to that is.
Not a legal argument but there is at least one state that already floated the idea of undermining the whole thing by refusing to publish their vote totals until all the electors are gathered to vote thereby preventing the popular vote from being determined ahead of time.
Then couldn’t they just ignore that state in the tally? It’s just a quick way to disenfranchise your own state.
A red state refuses to publish their voter tally.
Every blue state in the compact chooses to ignore that state.
Since they can’t know the true popular vote count, every red state in the compact has cover to refuse to cast blue EC votes as required by the compact.
If you and your state overwhelmingly votes for candidate A, yet your state’s EC votes are cast for Trump’s third term, you (or people like you) are going to demand your state withdraw from the compact.
If the compact ever actually affects an election, it will be scrapped in a hot minute.
yup. once it reaches the threshold, the congressional and legal battles that follow will likely keep it from ever actually taking effect without a constitutional amendment.
Article II, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress
It seems pretty cut and dry to me. It gives absolutely no guard rails, limits, directives, or even suggestions as to how those states’ legislatures may appoint Electors. They can do it “in such manner as [they] may direct”. The states have the latitude to decide how to assign and direct their Electors however they see fit.
It’s already enough latitude that different states at different times have decided A) to give an elector to the winner of each district and two to the winner of that statewide winner, B) to give them all to the statewide winner, C) to have the legislature decide without a popular vote, and D) to hold a state vote and then ignore it anyway and let the legislature decide instead. And 13 states, still, fully allow individual “faithless” Electors to vote against their assigned/pledged candidate, and only 14 states will actually void and replace the electors who misplaced their vote (the other states where it is disallowed just give them a fine or criminally charge them but still let their vote stand)…
If that’s the kind of latitude that is already settled law, then it would be absolutely insane to draw the line at assigning Electors on the will of the whole nation, i.e. of the entire body of people who has a pony in this race, and based on a compact that the states representing the majority of Americans agreed upon. It doesn’t disenfranchise anyone, the current system does that.
I’m sure that it will be challenged. But there is absolutely to legal justification to overturn it.
It’s not just battles trying to delay it. There’s very good legal arguments that congressional approval is required at a minimum in addition to states signing on.
Doesn’t really fix anything as long as it’s a binary option, where all power goes to the winner.
To improve democracy in USA, USA needs a parliamentary system, that allows representation by many parties, and a majority in that system decides who forms the government, and also has the power to overturn the government.As interesting as this sounds - I honestly can’t see it working.
Can you imagine how Californians would react if the state gave its votes to Trump after he won the popular vote?
I imagine a democracy not being run by slave-era tools like the electoral college.
It’s just a good thing trump can’t run again and he’s besmudged MAGA movemenr for the most part. They’re very unpopular at the moment.
Amendment 15 VERY CLEARLY says he can’t be President. VERY clearly. And the Supreme Court literally created a bullshit ruling pretending it doesn’t.
It’s not even up for debate. That’s what it LITERALLY says:
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
So…
We’ll, to many people it was very clear he couldn’t run the second time, given the insurrection attempt. But here we are.
There’s nothing stopping him from running as Vance’s VP, technically. We all know he’d still try to act like he’s president
You have to be eligible to be elected in order to be VP. So back in sane times, he would not be able to be VP either.
Can’t != Won’t
I hope you’re right and there is another legit election.
I was speaking in past-tense. But also literally any other maga asshole. California liberals would implode over the idea of giving their votes to Vance.
