[EM] In defense of the Electoral College (was Re: Making a Bad Thing Worse)

[Raph Frank]

On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 7:12 PM, Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 18:45:38 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
>> If the small states resist, the large and middle sized states will attain a majority, and thus through the compact/agreement overrule the others. At that point, it'll be in the interest of the small states to join since their share of power by staying outside the system is effectively zero.
>
> If you wander outside the law you can end up in court - a path available to the small states if the large states do that - or whoever felt hurt by the NPV agreement.

Is that illegal/unconstitutional?  That is open to dispute.  States
are allowed to decide how to assign their Electors, States
representing 51% of the EC votes could make the decision based on what
happens outside their State.

As a more extreme example, what if States formed a compact and the
compact said that they will not accept more members if the EC votes of
the compact exceed 50%.  This would create an incentive to join and
would mean that the compact States would hold all the power.

It is reasonable that the SC would rule that this is stripping the
non-compact members of their right to vote.   They might even rule
that State EC vote assignments must be purely based on the views of
the voters in that State.  However, someone with more SC knowledge
could probably comment better.

Also, a compact requires Congress' consent (or at least Congress can
block compacts).  It is likely that Congress wouldn't agree if the
terms of the compact were grossly unfair.

However, States could create a de facto compact by just establishing a
process and making it hard for the State to withdraw.