Squirrel Killer
Member
I've gone in depth about this before, and I know there are some that disagree with me, but the crux of my position is that it would be an equal protection violation.I understand not liking the idea, or thinking that such a large change to the system really ought to only occur with the consent of a supermajority, but I'm scratching my head at "unconstitutional". What's your thinking there?
If you look at the structure of how the Compact works, once the tipping point is reached, the member states change how they allocate their EC votes. Instead of just counting their own votes, they also count all the non-member states' votes. The non-member states only count their votes once. This means that member states' voters' votes are counted X times (where X=# of member states) and non-member states' voters' votes are counted X+1 times. This is an equal protection violation should any voter in the member states challenge it.
That's why I roll my eyes at those who claim the EC failed in 2000. It didn't "fail," it worked exactly as it was supposed to. What it did was "offend sensibilities," which is an entirely different statement.Edit: I'd also note that 2000 doesn't necessarily show that the EC has failed. The problem is that if the campaign had taken place in the context of an NPV system, it would have developed differently. Candidates would apportion their time and money differently (and might even be different candidates with different positions), and turnout rates and even the percentage of voters identifying as D or R would change. You can't argue from EC-governed elections in which the EC winner wasn't the NPV winner that the result would have been different in an NPV-governed election. Arguments for one or the other have to instead make reference to some model of what the NPV-governed outcome would be, or else they have to focus on procedural issues rather than outcomes.