Washington, D.C. – With a stroke of his pen, Minnesota Democratic Gov. Tim Walz can make his state the seventeenth to join an interstate compact in which members promise to award their presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote for president. (RELATED: Claim: Minnesota Democrats Open Door Wide To Using Sexuality As Criminal Defense)
The measure, which passed out of the Minnesota Legislature on May 19, is the brainchild of wealthy Californian John Koza and was conceived in the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election won by George W. Bush despite then-Vice President Al Gore having won more votes.
The number of electors apportioned to each state is equal to its total representation in the U.S. Congress. Minnesota currently has 10 – one for each of its members in the U.S. House of Representatives, one each for its two United States Senators.
According to the terms of the compact, it will not go into effect until the states that comprise it have enough members to constitute a majority of 270 votes in the Electoral College. With the addition of Minnesota, the number of electors in participating states rises to 205. (RELATED: Democrat Voters More Open To Third-Party Presidential Candidate)
“This has truly been a collaborative effort among Republicans, Democrats, and independents who have diligently worked towards advancing the very simple idea that the candidate who wins the most votes in all 50 states should be elected president,” Koza said. “The legislature's vote is an important step forward in electing the president by national popular vote and making every voter in every state politically relevant in every presidential election.”
Critics of the compact say it is an embrace of the kind of direct democracy the nation's founders explicitly and purposefully rejected when deciding how the president should be elected. Supporters counter that the measure does not abolish the Electoral College as some have charged but merely changes the manner in which electors are selected.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.
READ NEXT: Kari Lake Loses Final Claim In Election Challenge
That makes him and his legislature POSs by messing with the possible choice of the state’s people. And surrenders some of the little power remaining with the state.
The Supreme Court has already addressed this – the Constitution does not expressly prohibit this action by the states.
RINOs & DC State Estd types
So it doesn’t matter how his state votes. Maybe they should save money and not vote at all … they can just have their electors vote for the popular candidate as chosen by others.
That is not what it says – it says the state should follow the selection of the majority of the state’s voters and the Supreme Court addressed this issue b4 & said it is not unconstitutional.
The US Constitution requires that the electors to the electoral college be selected by the state legislature, not by some process mandated by the state governor. That is the constitutional law of the land! Walz has no power to do it.
You need to read this again – it is saying the state is going to require the Electoral College to vote for the candidate that got the majority of votes not someone else.
Why vote for president in MN. It doesn’t mean anything.
You read it wrong – the article says the state wants the Electoral College to have to vote for the candidate that gets the majority of votes in the state.
I have to add to this. May the earth open beneath their feet.
Very scary. The US is a banana republic
Congress and the Supreme court should decide this, not a state, or group of states!
Will fraudulent votes be be counted along with real votes towards the total number of votes? I smell the stench of Democrats coming on strong again.
States that can’t vote according to the constitution should have their electoral votes excluded from the election. Simply subtract them out of the total number of electoral votes and then determine the election winner based on whoever gets the majority of this new, lower number.
In other words, if they don’t want to play fair and legal, they can simply sit in the corner with their dunce caps on and not be represented at all.
This, in effect, eliminates the Electoral College despite the Democrats’ denials. Therefore, it SHOULD require a Constitutional Amendment before it can be legally done. Whether the Supreme Court would rule that way, I don’t know, but the INTENT is clearly to elect a President by a simple majority instead of through the E.C. as the Constitution provides.
Right. A simple majority is mob rule: two wolves and a sheep deciding who’s for dinner. A republic with its rule of Law protects sheep as well as wolves.
Entry into compacts by States requires the consent of Congress. Does such consent exist? Not yet.
ArtII.S1.C2.5 Discretion of Electors to Choose a President :…”The Supreme Court confirmed that a state’s power to appoint an elector includes the power to condition his appointment,12 and further clarified that as long as no other constitutional provision prohibits it, the state’s appointment power also enables the enforcement of a pledge through a law such as Washington’s.13 The Court emphasized that the barebones text of Article II and the Twelfth Amendment provide only for [a]ppointments and procedures and do not expressly prohibit[ ] States from taking away presidential electors’ voting discretion.” https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C2-5/ALDE_00013802/