Its a pretty insignificant number given we are talking tens of thousands of electors (I will leave it up to the reader to calculate exactly how many electors have had their votes counted since 1789.
We did have 10 faithless electors have their votes counted in 2016, so its not impossible, but like I said - in many states they just void th…
Its a pretty insignificant number given we are talking tens of thousands of electors (I will leave it up to the reader to calculate exactly how many electors have had their votes counted since 1789.
We did have 10 faithless electors have their votes counted in 2016, so its not impossible, but like I said - in many states they just void the votes and in any others taking a bribe would be a federal and importantly a state crime. And those were all protest voters who knew that they had no impact on the outcome.
So basically you would have Democratic party loyalists who would be willing to take money in order to put Trump in the White House with a huge risk of being imprisoned for doing so. That seems really really unlikely.
If even one person did that, it would also almost surely mean the end of the electoral college.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a way around that and I think a verified case of an elector being bribed would be enough that every remaining Dem trifecta state would pass it.
But even without that I think that the outrage over a candidate trying to bribe an elector would lead to a real national push for a constitutional amendment.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has no red states' support. You're aware that a whole bunch of Republican legislatures would have to vote for a constitutional amendment, unless we want to risk a Constitutional Convention, right?
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact needs no red state support. Thats the genius of it.
Yes, I realize a bunch of red states would have to vote for it. Thats how serious I think "bribing an elector to throw the election to the loser" would be treated.
The people who made the NPVIC made a serious error in naming it. Logically I can see no way that anyone could credibly argue that it violates the constitution, because the actual implementation isn't an agreement between states but instead an a trigger condition for a way of a state awarding its electoral votes.
However, they decided to give it the inaccurate name "Interstate Compact" — and the constitution specifically says those are only valid if approved by congress.
Probably too far in the weeds but if the compact could get to around 250 EVs is it safe from judicial attack until it hits 270? If so keep it just short until the court is less stacked.
Its a pretty insignificant number given we are talking tens of thousands of electors (I will leave it up to the reader to calculate exactly how many electors have had their votes counted since 1789.
We did have 10 faithless electors have their votes counted in 2016, so its not impossible, but like I said - in many states they just void the votes and in any others taking a bribe would be a federal and importantly a state crime. And those were all protest voters who knew that they had no impact on the outcome.
So basically you would have Democratic party loyalists who would be willing to take money in order to put Trump in the White House with a huge risk of being imprisoned for doing so. That seems really really unlikely.
If even one person did that, it would also almost surely mean the end of the electoral college.
The end of the electoral college? Do you realize that would require a constitutional amendment?
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a way around that and I think a verified case of an elector being bribed would be enough that every remaining Dem trifecta state would pass it.
But even without that I think that the outrage over a candidate trying to bribe an elector would lead to a real national push for a constitutional amendment.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has no red states' support. You're aware that a whole bunch of Republican legislatures would have to vote for a constitutional amendment, unless we want to risk a Constitutional Convention, right?
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact needs no red state support. Thats the genius of it.
Yes, I realize a bunch of red states would have to vote for it. Thats how serious I think "bribing an elector to throw the election to the loser" would be treated.
Sure, by the same party that stole the 2000 election and supported Trump's collaboration with Russia and attempts to steal the 2020 election...
It is a great idea that the Supreme Court would overturn less than 30 seconds after the final state passes it.
You mean the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, not a constitutional amendment?
The people who made the NPVIC made a serious error in naming it. Logically I can see no way that anyone could credibly argue that it violates the constitution, because the actual implementation isn't an agreement between states but instead an a trigger condition for a way of a state awarding its electoral votes.
However, they decided to give it the inaccurate name "Interstate Compact" — and the constitution specifically says those are only valid if approved by congress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_3:_Compact_Clause
This gives an easy out for the republican SCOTUS to void the whole thing if it lets them steal an election.
Wow! I did not know that! That error should be fixed.
Probably too far in the weeds but if the compact could get to around 250 EVs is it safe from judicial attack until it hits 270? If so keep it just short until the court is less stacked.