- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
National Popular Vote Interstate Pact - Dems trying to circumvent the Constitution
Posted on 4/21/26 at 1:53 pm
Posted on 4/21/26 at 1:53 pm
It seems the Democrat Party just can't win without cheating.
USConstitution.Net
As of April 2026, 19 jurisdictions have enacted the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 222 electoral votes, All from blue states.
Currently, it includes the following states in addition to DC: MD, NJ. IL, HI, MA, CA, VT, CT, CO, DE, NM, OR, VA, and ME.
USConstitution.Net
quote:
The compact is an agreement among participating states and the District of Columbia. DC is not a state, but it can participate through its own enabling law and, under the Twenty-Third Amendment, it carries three electoral votes.
Each member jurisdiction promises that, once the compact is in effect, it will award all of its electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote across all 50 states and DC.
As of April 2026, 19 jurisdictions have enacted the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 222 electoral votes, All from blue states.
Currently, it includes the following states in addition to DC: MD, NJ. IL, HI, MA, CA, VT, CT, CO, DE, NM, OR, VA, and ME.
This post was edited on 4/21/26 at 1:54 pm
15
Posted on 4/21/26 at 1:55 pm to tommy2tone1999
Doesn't the Constitution leave it to each stage to determine how to award its electoral votes?
Posted on 4/21/26 at 1:56 pm to tommy2tone1999
Democrats don't have the Supreme Court. Pacts don't circumvent the Constitution
Posted on 4/21/26 at 1:56 pm to tommy2tone1999
Patting themselves on the back until the GOP wins the popular vote
Posted on 4/21/26 at 1:59 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Doesn't the Constitution leave it to each stage to determine how to award its electoral votes?
state
By this logic, a state could award its electoral votes to whomever Alabama votes in? Can the state award its electoral votes to the candidate nominated by the Republican party without any relationship to an election at all? Can it award its electoral votes to whomever a foreign state (China) endorses?
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:03 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Doesn't the Constitution leave it to each stage to determine how to award its electoral votes?
Yes, that is correct
Add to that a state doesn't technically have to even hold a popular vote election. The constitution just says the states have to have a process in which electors are chosen. In the first elections some electors were chosen by the state legislature not a popular vote
This post was edited on 4/21/26 at 2:07 pm
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:05 pm to moneyg
quote:
By this logic, a state could award its electoral votes to whomever Alabama votes in?
Or a coin flip
Or what Punxsutawney Phil did that week
Or if the letters on the first page of the NYT on election day has even/odds words
Or have the Governor unilaterally assign them
This post was edited on 4/21/26 at 2:06 pm
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:07 pm to boosiebadazz
Then why even vote? Just don’t open the polls and automatically award the electorate votes to the popular vote winner of the other states. A small population state could decide that their electoral votes and low population is too little to have any bearing on the outcome and simply forgo the whole election dog and pokey show.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
I'm surprised they aren't saying they're going to hold a seance and give their electoral votes to whoever Satan tells them to.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:11 pm to donut
quote:No, it isn't.
Yes, that is correct
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State"
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:11 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Doesn't the Constitution leave it to each stage to determine how to award its electoral votes?
Yes, Not illegal but sure as hell circumvents the constitutional design of a Presidential election.
The Electoral college is designed to give the states weighted by voting. A candidate can win the popular vote by taking large majorities in the top 20 urban cities. This will kill any political leverage of the flyover states and pretty much eliminate “battleground” states.
This is exactly the issue the Electoral College is supposed to prevent…
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:12 pm to donut
quote:
Add to that a state doesn't technically have to even hold a popular vote election. The constitution just says the states have to have a process in which electors are chosen. In the first elections some electors were chosen by the state legislature not a popular vote
I think it’s an interesting exercise. I think the outside constitutional constraints would be ensuring a republic form of government and due process regarding the ability to vote.
How tenuous that becomes would be something for SCOTUS.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:13 pm to GetmorewithLes
quote:
circumvents the constitution
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:14 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Yes, that is correct
No, it isn't.
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State"
I wasn't talking about entering an agreement with another state. The questions was asked
quote:
Doesn't the Constitution leave it to each stage to determine how to award its electoral votes?
I answered yes, that is correct.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:14 pm to tommy2tone1999
This is pretty much textbook disenfranchisement is it not?
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:15 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:Only if Democrats regain both houses of Congress, and then vote for the compact that the states have already entered. Without that, it's unconstitutional.
I think it’s an interesting exercise
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:15 pm to GetmorewithLes
quote:
but sure as hell circumvents the constitutional design of a Presidential election.
Not really. The Constitution is silent as to how states must determine their EC reps.
quote:
The Electoral college is designed to give the states weighted by voting. A candidate can win the popular vote by taking large majorities in the top 20 urban cities. This will kill any political leverage of the flyover states and pretty much eliminate “battleground” states.
And this system gives votes different values. It can just as easily be argued that a system of equal voter representation is more equitable and states value that more than their inequitable share.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:16 pm to boosiebadazz
Yes.
The Constitution also guarantees due process and equal protection. Plus, it also provides that the President is elected via the Electoral College not via popular vote, which this is an end run around.
So, there are clearly constitutional problems for this sort of compact.
The Constitution also guarantees due process and equal protection. Plus, it also provides that the President is elected via the Electoral College not via popular vote, which this is an end run around.
So, there are clearly constitutional problems for this sort of compact.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:16 pm to donut
quote:But in this case it isn't. As I just pointed out.
I answered yes, that is correct.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 2:16 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Only if Democrats regain both houses of Congress, and then vote for the compact that the states have already entered. Without that, it's unconstitutional.
This being an actual "compact" that would have that provision apply is speculative, but they could just as easily get around this to avoid any such scrutiny.
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News