Minnesotans may vote for candidate X, but their votes won't count-or at least, won't have any particular significance in casting Minnesota's votes for president.
If enough voters in other states prefer candidate Y, then the votes of Minnesotans will be entirely disregarded, and the state's electoral votes will go to candidate Y. Constitutionally, there is no such thing as a "National popular vote." It is essentially a journalistic construct.
3) Electing the president by a "National popular vote" would be an invitation to voter fraud.
The states, which represent a whopping 189 electoral votes, have agreed to shift their voting allocations once the group amasses 270 votes, the threshold needed to decide a presidential election.
What will happen in a given state the first time that its electoral votes are cast for a candidate that the state didn't vote for? When, for example, a Democrat carries California by 30 points, but all of California's electoral votes are cast for a Republican who narrowly carried the "National popular vote"? I suspect that "One man, one vote" principles would rapidly fly out the window.
Assuming the Virginia v. Tennessee formula still holds, it seems clear that the popular vote agreement does not "Encroach on or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States," since the Constitution empowers states to choose presidential electors "In such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct."
On the contrary, the states that enter into the Agreement arguably are disadvantaging their own voters and empowering non-contracting states.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/04/the-lefts-most-serious-attack-on-federalism.php
If enough voters in other states prefer candidate Y, then the votes of Minnesotans will be entirely disregarded, and the state's electoral votes will go to candidate Y. Constitutionally, there is no such thing as a "National popular vote." It is essentially a journalistic construct.
3) Electing the president by a "National popular vote" would be an invitation to voter fraud.
The states, which represent a whopping 189 electoral votes, have agreed to shift their voting allocations once the group amasses 270 votes, the threshold needed to decide a presidential election.
What will happen in a given state the first time that its electoral votes are cast for a candidate that the state didn't vote for? When, for example, a Democrat carries California by 30 points, but all of California's electoral votes are cast for a Republican who narrowly carried the "National popular vote"? I suspect that "One man, one vote" principles would rapidly fly out the window.
Assuming the Virginia v. Tennessee formula still holds, it seems clear that the popular vote agreement does not "Encroach on or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States," since the Constitution empowers states to choose presidential electors "In such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct."
On the contrary, the states that enter into the Agreement arguably are disadvantaging their own voters and empowering non-contracting states.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/04/the-lefts-most-serious-attack-on-federalism.php
No comments:
Post a Comment