[EL] Two thoughts on the Electoral College and National PopularVote

[Thomas J. Cares]

Personally, I take strong issue with saying "NPV amounts to abolishing the
Electoral College" and is a "de facto amendment of the Constitution." NPV
does not actually abolish the Electoral College.

I see nothing in either the constitutional text, nor history, forming the
electoral college, which suggests it would be prohibiting of the NPV, or
that it would have the intent of the framers to prohibit this.

My objective reading of the EC is that its only *permanent* intent was to
give each state the discretion to choose the process by which they decide
how to influence (in a proportion the framers felt fair) the selection of
the potus (As far as I can tell, they can base it on an election like they
do now, or just have their legislature elect a slate of ECs or, just pass a
law saying that each member of their congressional delegation can
unilaterally choose one elector, or they can do something like join the NPV
compact, or probably a lot of other things) .


NPV isn't unconstitutional (at least if approved by congress), because the
institution of the EC still remains, and if some states, who opted in,
don't like how it worked out for them, they can opt out before the next
election (and maybe some that hadn't opted in would change their mind and
opt in and make up for those votes, or maybe not). The EC was intended to
give states broad discretion, which would include the discretion to join
the NPV compact.


Thomas Cares

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That being said, I oppose NPV for reasons other than its democratic
>> claims, but NPV advocates should I think explain and wrestle with the
>> democratic implications that their compact represents.
>>
>
> I'll answer one question before it arises.  How in the world can I justify
> opposing NPV for  reasons "other than its democratic claims" (which I find
> basically justified) when I am otherwise saying generally that it is
> virtually impossible for the weight of considerations beyond purely
> democratic claims to exceed the claims of democracy?
>
> My answer is simple:  NPV can not use a contractual / compact-based
> approach as an end-around for the more democratic / republican procedure of
> amending the Constitution, since NPV amounts to abolishing the Electoral
> College if it is put into effect. A subset of the whole can not, by
> contract, agree on a procedure that is a de facto amendment of the
> Constitution.
>
> Paul Lehto, J.D
>
> --
> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
> P.O. Box 1
> Ishpeming, MI  49849
> lehto.paul at gmail.com
> 906-204-4965 (cell)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20121128/38b2e3bf/attachment.html>