The National Popular Vote Plan has been introduced into both houses of the Minnesota legislature. The bills are SF 585 and HF 799.
Also, the “Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act” has been introduced into both houses. This is the model legislation that provides that parties nominate two candidates for presidential elector for each seat, an elector and an alternate. If the elector votes in the electoral college for someone other than the presidential candidate expected, the elector is deemed to have resigned and is replaced by the alternate. The bills are HF 526 and SF 464.
The bills HF 526 and SF 464 are certainly unconstitutional.
How can somebody be forced to vote a certain way? What if the candidates were killed in a plane crash following the election but before the Electoral College met?
Sadly you would need “standing” in order to challenge it.
PEACE
Minnesota of course had that problem in 2004 when an unnamed elector accidentally (?) voted John Edwards for both president and VP
1 –
The US Constitution gives to the state legislatures the plenary right (affirmed by the USSC) to allocate their state’s electors. Electors are agents appointed to carry out the will of the entity which creates the agency. Putting restrictions on a state’s electors’ votes, including a mandate that their votes reflect the legislature’s will, is more than reasonable and logical – it’s unquestionably legal.
#3, but what about the scenario outlined in #1 in which either the presidential candidate or the vice-presidential candidate are dead? What then? These bills would prevent the electoral college from functioning; it would force the electors or alternate electors to vote for dead people, but in 1872 Congress set the precedent that electoral votes for dead people are invalid.
1. NO uniform definition of Elector-Voter in the NPV scheme from Hell.
2. NPV – blatant violation of 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 – permitting Voters OUTSIDE a sovereign State determine election results INSIDE such State.
3. Abolish minority rule gerrymander Electoral College.
4. Const Amdt – Uniform definition of Elector and nonpartisan App.V.
4 –
Careful, Richard…you’re running the risk of sounding like you know who…fretting over unlikely scenarios. Whatever…let me ask you this question. Do those bills preclude legislatures from convening special sessions and taking emergency action when necessary and appropriate?
And now…enter you know who himself.
# 4 The 1872 action was plainly UN-constitional.
The 12th Amdt ONLY allows the gerrymander robot party hacks to count the E.C. votes.
ZERO about any underlying stuff – qualifications or disqualification of candidates or the Prez/VP Electors — for the courts to worry about.
#6, these bills, which were drafted a few years ago by a group that promotes “model bills”, don’t deal with emergencies.
#3 The US Constitution grants the State legislatures the authority to direct the manner by which electors are appointed.
The US Constitution gives Congress the authority to set the time of appointment, and the date of meeting of the electors in their respective States.
The US Constitution spells out the duties of the electors. Without the US Constitution, there would be no need for presidential electors, and therefore the States do not retain or reserve any powers related to the duties of the electors under the 9th and 10th Amendments. Similarly, there is no authority for Congress to regulate in this area, beyond what is necessary for them to be able to count the electoral votes.
Currently, 48 States have directed that the manner of appointment be by statewide popular election; and 2 States have directed that the manner of appointment be by a mix of district and statewide popular vote.
Congress has set the time of appointment to be the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. It has also provided for a contingent appointment if the State holds an election and fails to make an appointment on that date. If you read the legislative history, the contingency they anticipated was one in which a State required majority election of electors.
Congress has also provided that each State may by law provide for filling vacancies which may occur when the electors meet.
The duties of the electors are to meet in their respective States on the date set by Congress and for each to cast their two electoral votes. It is clear from Article XII that it is the electors who make the tally sheets, which they must sign and certify as being correct. If State executive officials participate, it is strictly in a clerical role – providing the meeting place, refreshments, paper, and pens.
There is no reason to construe “meet” in any sense of being a deliberative meeting among the electors, with no one else involved other than as a facilitator; and “vote” in any sense other than an elector making a free choice for anyone qualified to be President (as long as both persons are not from the same State as the elector).
Minnesota’s concept of voting is not differentiable from herding a bunch of cows into voting stalls, and if they fail to vote for the right candidate, apply a stun gun to their skull, drag their carcass out, declare a vacancy, and prodded a replacement cow into the voting stall.
They even provide for ripping up the original certificate of ascertainment and sending a new one to Washington. Any official photo of the electors will have the elector chosen by the people photo-shopped out.
How many cows and crocadiles in each New Age Congress and State legislature ???
i.e. EVIL mindless WILD animal robot party hacks.
9 –
“Minnesota’s concept of voting is not differentiable from herding a bunch of cows into voting stalls, and if they fail to vote for the right candidate, apply a stun gun to their skull, drag their carcass out, declare a vacancy, and prodded a replacement cow into the voting stall.”
(Yes, I actually slogged through to your penultimate paragraph, the first which seemed remotely on point.)
Jimbo, if cows would be trusted to vote for the candidate who wins the most popular votes nationwide, I would support having cows serve as electors.
Are we now, finally, in agreement on this matter?
#11 Bartonsimpsonia, you claimed that the “Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act” was “unquestionably legal”.
It includes the following definition: “Cast” means accepted by the secretary of state in accordance with 208.46, paragraph (b).
208.46(b) says that the Secretary of State is to not accept the ballot unless the elector voted the right way. 208.46(c) says that if an elector refuses to vote the right way, returns a blank ballot, or votes the wrong way, he vacates the position, and a more compliant elector/cow will replace them.
So if an ordinary elector goes to the polls and casts a ballot for the “wrong” candidate may, that ballot may be discarded?
If a State can redefine the meaning of “vote” in the 12th Amendment, why can’t it redefine the meaning of “vote” in the 17th Amendment?
BTW, under the NPV Scheme, if Minnesota were to issue an amended Certificate of Ascertainment after the electors met on the federal election date in December, how would some other State know which to use to determine the NPV winner.
Wouldn’t it be better to appoint corporations as electors?
13 –
Make up your mind , will you Jimbo? Cows or companies as electors? Are you suggesting cows should get the vote? Great idea! A natural constituency for Republicans, and they come in numbers sufficient to win elections.
Don’t argue with Riley. Just refute him.
Riley is a shill for powerful political interests bent upon ending free elections in America with their “top-two” plan and installing a single, state-controlled party system under the control of the power elite.