How do you kill the Electoral College?

[xchen08]

I don't think it's unconstitutional. The way you're saying, SCOTUS will look at the Constitution thinking of the intent, not the actual binding legal phrasing. But with the Compact, they'll look at the binding legalities, rather than the intent. I doubt they'd split it like that; either they'd go exact Constitutional phrasing, in which case they don't have the right to butt in and it's Constitutional, or they'll consider the intent, which is to make America more democratic, and decide it's a worthy enough cause. Or, of course, a mix (some judges might go for one, some for another).

It's not that. If it were that, it would be a either a straightforward division between the strict constructionists and the activists or a just as straightforward party line vote. It's rather the Court needing to protect its own perogatives. It has no way of permitting the Compact without also allowing states to give their electors to the champion pig lifter. Given a choice like this, despite how unlikely the pig-lifter compact is, the Court is likely choose to protect its own rights.

 

[Solomaxwell6]

It's not that. If it were that, it would be a either a straightforward division between the strict constructionists and the activists or a just as straightforward party line vote. It's rather the Court needing to protect its own perogatives. It has no way of permitting the Compact without also allowing states to give their electors to the champion pig lifter. Given a choice like this, despite how unlikely the pig-lifter compact is, the Court is likely choose to protect its own rights.

I doubt they'd vote against it for that reason, based on the absurdity of the pig-lifter compact. They could easily phrase their decision in such a way that just expands the power of states to let them go for the winner of the popular vote (well, not really an expansion of power, but you know what I mean). Actual SCOTUS decisions can be quite long and go into a lot of detail explaining both the reason for their decision and the limits/implications of their decision to help define what they mean.

I think the strongest opposition would go for personal/pragmatic reasons; justices that were appointed by Bush will probably be much more likely to oppose the compact.

 

[Christopher Marlowe]

A similair situation occurs in my state, though I'm an indpendent. I personally can't see Massachusetts ever not giving it's 10 electoral votes over to a democratic candidate, unless he's a murderer or something.(Oh wait I forgot we already elected one as our senator for thrty years =) )

This thread has reminded me that I don't like the lectoral college as much anymore haha