So when Trump wins the popular vote on election day, but then Biden wins ...

Yes . . . based on the laws in their state. Which they can change within certain timeframes. What law would stop a state from simply saying, "You know what, we are just going to let our legislators decide and the vote of the state doesn't actually matter?" And before you try misreading the independent legislature theory, that's not what it means.

 

Red herring. That doesn't address what I said in that post. It.could be applicable to another post of mine, but you would need to quote that post instead.

 

I decide what's applicable and where to post it, thanks. At any rate a state trying to change it election results based on a spurious national popular vote meme is like to spend a lot of days in federal courts.

 

What would stop them? Thousands of disenfranchisement suits, for one thing. You forget that even blue states have high numbers of red voters

 

What would be the basis for such a suit? If the legislature decides to pass laws that allow them to ignore the majority vote in that state entirely . . . they can probably do that

 

Yes I do. In 1988, Bush Sr. (R) won CA. So did Regan (R) in '84 and '80. In '76 Ford (R) won CA, but Carter (D) won TX. In '72 and '68 Nixon (R) won CA, while in '68 Humphrey (D) won TX. In '64 Johnson (D) won TX. in '60 Nixon (R) won CA, while Kennedy (D) won TX. Need I go on?

Granted, but I was throwing them out of the equation since there is no real pattern to them occurring and they are relatively rare.

 

Laws on the state level have nothing to do with whether it is constitutional or not for the state to have a method other than popular vote to determine it's electors to the EC.

 

At which point you will get called out on the fallacy of not addressing the points presented. It is rather dishonest to quote one point and then address something else altogether.

Granted and rightly so, but that doesn't have a single thing to do with the fact that it is constitutionally valid for the state to change up the method such that it no longer holds a popular vote. It's not a change if it never happens.

 

All of which would be found to have no standing since there is no right to vote as already ruled on by SCOTUS

The fact that a state can "[choose] to use a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college", also means that it can choose to implement a different method. All the US Constitutional 15th and 19th amendments do is say that if voting is used, race and sex cannot be factors by which a person can be denied voting. Granted if the state constitution has in it the method of appointing members to the EC, that's an issue at the state level. There is nothing in the US constitution that would stop a state from changing up its method between elections. So in 2025, 26, or 27, Maryland (chosen at random) could change from popular vote to legislature choice. And there would be nothing unconstitutional about it. Would there be a s**tstorm if they did? most likely? But any lawsuit would be found to not have standing, at least on a federal level.

 

You still don't grasp that while laws embody constitutionality, not every law is "in the constitution". State votes are meant to express the will of the individual state not some wackadoodle compact created by sore losers.
While your comments are close - YES the state CAN decide HOW to choose ITS ELECTORS as they wish - using other states votes is not among them.

 

Really, and where do you get that from?

 

And your legal support of that is what? What is to stop them, constitutionally, from doing so? Granted, this could well turn into a "F around and find out" situation where every legislator who voted for it finds themselves out of office their next election, but save for something in a specific state's constitution, it's legal and constitutional to do so.

 

Basically, the founders just believed that the states wouldn't be stupid enough to give the rights of their citizens' right to vote. It all boils down to that. You can play all the word games in the world, it doesn't change things. The whole issue is a massive circle jerk for crybaby libs upset because they can't do what they want.

 

when I read the title of this thread, I admit it made me chuckle

Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million in 2016

trump lost the popular vote by 8 million votes in 2020, he had the power of the office and Airforce One to fly around the country and use it as a backdrop at his campaign stops ...and still got spanked by a senile old man

fast forward to 2024...trump has no job. no position and no power .. and dont forget the 34 felony convictions

there are 2 chances trump wins the popular vote

1. slim
2. none

and slim got lost

 

popular vote is nowhere defined in Constitution. So, there's that.

 

Neither is poverty level, but the federal government officially tracks that as well. No one is claiming that it is defined in the constitution.

 

Is there supposed to be an "away" in this sentence? Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

And you still haven't provided any support for your position. Just assertions.

 

Thanks to @Bowerbird I have a video to share. Some things happened since I started this thread, and now everything is out the window strange.

The Lawyer or the Conman - A Randy Rainbow Song Parody
Duration: 5:48.

 

Yeah, I have. Far too many actually.

 

Totally irrelevant and vapid.

 

You didn't answer the question, leaving your one statement unclear

Oh Really? Let's review.

Nope, not one single bit of supporting evidence in any of those posts. But wait, that's not all of them.

You're using my source, but at least that is something. But this is still just a claim that what you say is in there. I at least quoted the appropriate section that supported my point. If you can't manage to quote yours, then it must not really exist. So again no actual support until you quote the support.

Ah now we have an actual link from you. Sadly for you, it didn't actually counter what was said. While indeed it does show that a state can constitutionally pass laws to force the electors to vote per the state popular vote, it didn't show that the states were constitutionally required to do so. Further, since the point actually made in the post you used that link to respond to said that a state was constitutionally allowed to have methods of elector selection other than popular vote, your link does nothing to address that point. So once again no actual support of the point.

That's all you wrote. No actual support. I on the other hand supported that the national popular vote is real, official and used by at least one federal agency (specifically the FEC), and I supported that SCOTUS ruled that there is no constitutionally protected right to vote for the president or vice president unless granted by a state, and that no state was constitutionally require to use popular vote for selecting electors. Now it was only 4 pages, but it is possible that I missed a post of your in my above quoting. So feel free to actually quote your post that provides any of this supposed support of your points you made. I'm not holding my breath though. I'm betting that you pull the TL;DR card, and not actually provide any support.

 

As irrelevant and vapid as noting that the popular vote is not defined in the Constitution. There are tons of things not defined in the Constitution that the federal measures and uses.

 

True, and many ARE defined in laws that implement constitutional laws. The federal register comprises 50,000 pages.

 

wQuite frankly, you still have no concept of the issue. Legislatures that use anything other than STATE'S popular vote would be sued out of existence. IF you can point out a state that DOESN"T its vote to apportion Electoral votes name them. Yes some apportion electoral votes in proportion to results, a large majority use "winner take all. IN NO INSTANCE does a state use the results of another state's vote to apparition their electoral votes. IF the National Public Vote compact EVER
becomes likely the issue will end up in the SCOTUS so fast it will cause a sonic boom.

 

Pot, kettle, achromatic

On what legal grounds? You've been asked this and you haven't provided those actual legal grounds. The Constitution allows for each state to select the method. How is anyone going to sue the state for doing what it is constitutionally allowed to do? Yes, they can file the suit, but either they will not have standing, or it will easily be pointed out that the state acted within its constitutional rights, assuming nothing in the state constitution addressing voting for the president and vice president. Show me the actual legal basis by which the suit will have basis. Make sure you are taking Bush v Gore in mind.

I can point out that the states all used to have their electors selected by the individual state legislatures. They then began to shift to popular vote instead. As of 1824, there were still 6 states that were selecting the electors by the legislature, and not by state popular vote. By 1832, South Carolina was the only state doing so. In 1876, Colorado did the same, but that was because they were just made a state that year, and didn't have time to set up for state popular vote. But at no point was any state forced to do so by the Constitution or by federal law. Which also means that any state can choose to change it again, either back to legislature choice, or to some other method.

All this does is show what is currently in place, NOT what a state is allowed to do by the Constitution. You have to show what actually forbids them to select electors by means other than state popular vote

Of this I have no doubt. However, there is no legal basis in either federal law nor the Constitution on which to base such a case. What federal law or Constitution passage are you claiming requires the states to use their state popular vote to determine their electoral votes? What law or passage do you claim shows that they CAN'T use the results of the national popular vote to determine their electoral votes? Keep in mind, I am not arguing that the Compact is the way it should be. Quite the opposite, I oppose the Compact. But that doesn't change the fact that it is constitutionally allowable.

Also, I called it. You still didn't offer any actual support of your assertions.