Bell Curve The Law Talking Guy Raised by Republicans U.S. West
Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."

Friday, September 01, 2006


The CA Legislature approved the National Popular Vote plan all that remains is to see if Arnie will sign it. If he refuses, that is a big problem. If he signs it, and he may well do so (he has taken "no position") then we are a big step closer to reducing the antidemocratic effects of the electoral college.


Anonymous said...

I see no reason for him not to do it. This is a great step and I hope other states will follow suit. 

// posted by Bell Curve

Dr. Strangelove said...

It is a great idea! Now let's also see the government take measures to ensure the national popular vote is conducted in a much more fair, uniform, and transparent manner.

Anonymous said...

But will it pass constitutional muster? Let's say there is another super close election and a Republican wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote (the GOP is the most likely party to have this happen since they depend so heavily on rural voters). This law kicks in and the Democrat wins. But the Republican challenges the election results based on this law saying that they are unconstitutional.

What would the US Supreme Court say? Would there be another party line vote on another election?

I'm not opposed to this new idea but I'm not 100% on it either. It just seems a little cute to work.  

// posted by Raised By Republicans

Anonymous said...

I see no constitutional problems with it. The SC was inches away from ruling that state legislatures have plenary power to appoint electors in any way they see fit, and that is the view of the majority clearly expressed.

Note that the Republican cannot "win" the EC unless there is a rule appointing electors. Today, there is a winner-take-all rule in 48 of 50 states today. That rule could be changed easily, which is what the interstate compact proposes.

There is absolutely no constitutional requirement for winner-take-all rules, which the SC well understands.  

// posted by LTG

Anonymous said...

Thanks. Let's hope it works.  

// posted by RBR