Colorado Prop 113

[DJQuag]

Well, it passed and if we look at it it's quite a doozy.

It basically acts as a bootstrapping bypass of the Electoral College. It promises that if states adding up to 270 electoral votes also take up the compact, that Colorado pledges their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner.

Now people may get skeptical about that coming about but the funny thing about propositions that let's them continue to surprise us is that when you're voting they don't have an R or a D attached to them. So people who brainlessly vote straight ticket actually have to step back and think a moment. And I think this is something that could definitely catch on.

[Grant]

Well, it passed and if we look at it it's quite a doozy.
It basically acts as a bootstrapping bypass of the Electoral College.

This is old news.  Where you been?  It's the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.  16 States have already passed the measure.  Goes all the way back to 2007.  There is a big question about the constitutionality of the matter.  If it ever does pass it will end up with SCOTUS.  The agreement can also basically be pulled out of.  They have about 200 electoral votes tied up already.  More important the Colorado are votes in Ohio, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. 

[DJQuag]

Well, it passed and if we look at it it's quite a doozy.
It basically acts as a bootstrapping bypass of the Electoral College.

This is old news.  Where you been?  It's the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.  16 States have already passed the measure.  Goes all the way back to 2007.  There is a big question about the constitutionality of the matter.  If it ever does pass it will end up with SCOTUS.  The agreement can also basically be pulled out of.  They have about 200 electoral votes tied up already.  More important the Colorado are votes in Ohio, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.

Honestly, I didn't know and thanks for passing the info on.

I'm curious on the basis of it being unconstitutional though. You'd think state's rights include how they choose to allocate their electoral votes. It's definitely not an issue of needing to  cleave to local election results or the existence of rogue electors wouldn't be a thing.

And of course if the state got tired of it they could vote it away.

[Grant]

I'm curious on the basis of it being unconstitutional though. You'd think state's rights include how they choose to allocate their electoral votes. It's definitely not an issue of needing to  cleave to local election results or the existence of rogue electors wouldn't be a thing.

My understanding is that it has to do with Congress having to approve any deals that states make with each other. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#Constitutionality

The flip side of the argument is that yes, the state legislatures have the authority to choose how electors are chosen. 

[TheDeamon]

The flip side of the argument is that yes, the state legislatures have the authority to choose how electors are chosen.

Which under certain other interpretations of other voting amendments also may be used to invalidate the compact should it cause a state to assign electors to a candidate other than 1) who the voter (claims to) have voted for 2) who won the vote in their state.

They can make a legitimate disenfranchisement claim which the courts would then have to adjudicate.

A compact that could possibly pass a constitutional challenge all the way around, once the interstate compact issue is addressed, would be to do the Nebraska/Maine apportionment of EC votes by congressional district, and assign the 2 "supernumerary" (senate) votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Although that would create an "interesting" mix of other issues.