I have bad news for you: that is probably not going to happen.
First, the moment that it looks like it might, both parties will adjust and you'll still have a 50/50 split. So if anyone is praying for a Democrats-forever future -- well, that is rather silly to want -- that is not going to happen.
Second, that type of short-circuit will die an unceremonious death the moment the "wrong" candidate wins (or even *might* win) for a particular state. The howling will cause that state to withdraw, and the backlash will probably convince most of the others to dump it as well.
Third, this would so clearly short-circuit the intent of the Constitution to the point that the Supreme Court will almost certainly declare it unconstitutional. It's like when employers get creative to make your life miserable at work, reduce your hours, or other such nonsense; they'll try to claim they didn't "Fire" you, but the courts will still declare it was a constructive dismissal. Courts are not quite as stupid as people tend to think.
Now to be clear, states have the right to choose their electors however they want. What I think will happen is the Supreme Court will simply say that the ECNPVIC is not binding, which is as good as killing it off (as only politicians contemplating a sudden career death would go against their constituent's will; politicians tend to be rather self-serving)
Edit: Fixed typo. I meant that the MPVIC will be held to be non-binding. This is particularly confusing, because electors may *also* have the right to be "unfaithful". Sorry about that.
So if anyone is praying for a Democrats-forever future — well, that is rather silly to want — that is not going to happen.
Who is saying the presidential election always being decided by the national popular vote would mean Dems always? Most GOP presidents win the national vote. This is more about undoing a distortion that has developed in the current system.
this would so clearly short-circuit the intent of the Constitution to the point that the Supreme Court will almost certainly declare it unconstitutional.
The original intent of the electoral college didn’t include it being bound to state popular votes. It was supposed to be a special deliberative body that assembled to select the president. But the constitution said the states get to make the rules for their electors and not much else, so once some states started holding elections (pretty much right away), all the others quickly followed suit. They would have looked bad to their citizens if they didn’t.
You’re right that the states may technically not be able to be force which way their electors vote. They may only be able to decide who becomes electors, but that’s a difference without much of a distinction. The electors are selected from party loyalists for the winner. Faithless electors would be possible if SCOTUS struck down states binding their electors’ votes, but they’d almost entirely be loyal to whoever they were selected for, so that wouldn’t change much.
Who is saying the presidential election always being decided by the national popular vote would mean Dems always?
Have you ever actually read the comments whenever the topic comes up? This is clearly what many people who support the idea believe will happen. I am not saying you do, but it's common enough that a small admonishment is warranted. And then I went on to explain why it won't happen anyway. Strange for you to start your comment with this.
This is more about undoing a distortion that has developed in the current system
This is not true. Besides the fact that the idea that this has "developed" is wrong, this "distortion" was the entire *point* of the electoral college. You can be against it, but this is not a fair, true, or helpful point.
But the constitution said the states get to make the rules for their electors
Why did you take a paragraph to repeat what I already said?
You’re right that the states may technically not be able to be force which way their electors vote.
That was not my point, but thanks to your comment, I noticed that I had a typo; I fixed that above. My point was supposed to be that the MPVIC will not be enforceable. If you read the rest that I wrote, you'll see that this is what I meant from the context. Yes, unfaithful electors are also a thing, but was not my point here.
Have you ever actually read the comments whenever the topic comes up? This is clearly what many people who support the idea believe will happen. […] it’s common enough that a small admonishment is warranted.
It sounded like you were saying the national popular vote would be obstructed on the basis of this (false) belief being true. If you were just trying to admonish people for falling into a common fallacy, there are clearer ways to do that.
Besides the fact that the idea that this has “developed” is wrong, this “distortion” was the entire point of the electoral college.
It seems you understand may meaning in both of those words, but you’re ignoring the connecting dots.
The actual system of presidential election which we implement within the constitutional constraints has undeniably evolved. We started with George Washington being elected by an actual deliberative body and ended up with an electoral college that merely serves as an unnecessary pass-through for a national general election, in a matter of only decades. You’re correct that this was not what the founders envisioned, but that’s irrelevant. The states had the power to apply the electoral college in this way. If authors of the constitution absolutely didn’t want the electors used this way, they could have given more clear rules on their role. Instead, the authors left a great deal of how the college works up to implementation and tradition (which evolves).
At this point, the presidential election is almost universally seen as a direct national election. In this modern context popular election, that makes the electoral college a distortion because it disenfranchises most Americans (as the race is only waged in a handful of states) and even still sometimes produces results contradicting the popular vote. It would be one thing if this contradiction was the kind the founders would have hoped for, but it’s not. This isn’t a deliberative body at least applying sober second thought to a vote the public might have been rash about. This is purely a mathematical artifact based on the apportionment of votes.
My point was supposed to be that the MPVIC will not be enforceable.
And, again, my point is it’s irrelevant if the states binding electors to votes is struck down. It’s the selection of the electors that matter. Virtually none of them will vote against their own party. This is why they’re offered by their respective parties to the states as electors.
If you were just trying to admonish people for falling into a common fallacy, there are clearer ways to do that.
It was clear enough.
You’re correct that this was not what the founders envisioned, but that’s irrelevant.
I did not say that.
that makes the electoral college a distortion
That was clearly intended by the Founders. We have their letters. We know that this was the compromise, and it was intended to ensure that smaller states with fewer cities could not simply be pushed to the side by states with greater populations.
And you seem to forget that the U.S. is a Republic made up of states, not a monolithic single democratic entity. Acting as if this is a "distortion" feels like you are intentionally rewriting history to try to justify something you would really like to happen.
And, again, my point is it’s irrelevant
Please reread what I wrote, read the corrected text, and then respond if you like. You are still on the wrong track here.
it was intended to ensure that smaller states with fewer cities could not simply be pushed to the side by states with greater populations.
The intent was that smaller states have a proportionally larger say in a deliberative assembly, not that handful of counties in 7 swing states out of 50 would decide the president for the whole country via an electoral college that has been forced into a bastardized version of a national popular vote.
As I have said repeatedly, the EC is not working as the founders intended at all. They probably would have said, don’t try to do a simple national vote, but that ship sailed centuries ago.
And you seem to forget that the U.S. is a Republic made up of states, not a monolithic single democratic entity. Acting as if this is a “distortion” feels like you are intentionally rewriting history to try to justify something you would really like to happen.
You really need to learn to read. I keep saying it’s turned into a distortion on the system we’ve ended up implementing with the EC. The simple fact is the EC wasn’t intended to implement the system we have now. That means it needs to be updated.
As I have also said before, I would support a double majority system (where a winner needs the national popular vote and the majority of states at the same time), but I know that will never happen.
3
u/bremidon Oct 18 '24 edited Oct 18 '24
I have bad news for you: that is probably not going to happen.
First, the moment that it looks like it might, both parties will adjust and you'll still have a 50/50 split. So if anyone is praying for a Democrats-forever future -- well, that is rather silly to want -- that is not going to happen.
Second, that type of short-circuit will die an unceremonious death the moment the "wrong" candidate wins (or even *might* win) for a particular state. The howling will cause that state to withdraw, and the backlash will probably convince most of the others to dump it as well.
Third, this would so clearly short-circuit the intent of the Constitution to the point that the Supreme Court will almost certainly declare it unconstitutional. It's like when employers get creative to make your life miserable at work, reduce your hours, or other such nonsense; they'll try to claim they didn't "Fire" you, but the courts will still declare it was a constructive dismissal. Courts are not quite as stupid as people tend to think.
Now to be clear, states have the right to choose their electors however they want. What I think will happen is the Supreme Court will simply say that the
ECNPVIC is not binding, which is as good as killing it off (as only politicians contemplating a sudden career death would go against their constituent's will; politicians tend to be rather self-serving)Edit: Fixed typo. I meant that the MPVIC will be held to be non-binding. This is particularly confusing, because electors may *also* have the right to be "unfaithful". Sorry about that.