[duxup]

So the electors are restricted to what they can do to some extent, but can the individual state tell the electors to do something that conflicts with what their own voters may have overwhelmingly voted against?

That seems like it would inevitably fall apart.

Also present a lot of mystery about "they going to do it?" and then someone doesn't and someone else chooses something else.

Talk about a mess for democracy ...

[twoodfin]

You are, I believe, correct.

States can pick any means of selecting their electors that doesn’t conflict with other provisions of the Constitution. Obviously, a state imposing a requirement that electors be white or male would not fly.

OK, so they choose to have a state election. It must be a fair election, affording due process to all the voters as that is Constitutionally understood (one person, one vote, for example).

“We’ll have an election, but if national results go a different way, we’ll throw out the votes of the ‘wrong’ voters,” is … not that.

An analogy: Could the southern states agree to a compact to elect their governors by party slate? I doubt that would pass muster, and neither would the popular vote compact.

[yongjik]

I can't find a table for this election, but for 2020, the most Republican state was Wyoming, with 27% (73k) still voting for Biden. Wyoming still got to ignore those 73k voters because the rule says the winner of the state takes it all.

Similarly in the other direction: aside from DC, the most Democratic state was Vermont, which ignored its 31% of voters choosing Trump.

Now consider that these are the most extreme states, and by definition, all other states ignored larger proportion of voters through winner-takes-all. Arizona had 49.36% D vs 49.06% R. Did the republican vote matter? Barely 10k more votes and the whole state decides all of its 11 votes are for Biden.

Yet somehow, no riots, no overthrowing state governments. (Yes yes we eventually had riots but that's a different issue - they were totally okay with the rules, they just didn't like the results.)

Popular vote is basically "Our state decided to choose what the majority of Americans want. The people have spoken, and chose candidate X. We're now honoring the decision." There's no reason why it should fall apart any more than the electoral college should.

[bryanlarsen]

> There's no reason why it should fall apart any more than the electoral college should.

People will accept a flawed mechanism that's been used for 200 years far more readily than a new slightly-less-flawed-but-still-flawed mechanism.

And every voting mechanism has trade-offs, so every mechanism has flaws from certain perspectives.

[duxup]

Being a winner takes all state by LAW isn't the same as just "agreeing" with the next door neighbor state that you will be a winner take all, based on a national popular vote, and tell electors to do something different ...

That's not the same thing at all.

[yongjik]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...

In each of the seventeen states and DC, National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has been passed by the state legislature, and signed by the executive branch, except for Hawaii (whose governor tried to veto it but it was overriden).

The bills followed all the proper steps to be signed into respective state's laws. It's not some kind of "agreement." It's the LAW. If you don't like it, feel free to go campaign in those states to change the LAW.

[twoodfin]

State laws incompatible with the Constitution are null & void.

“We’re going to award our electors according to a compact never approved by Congress and that by design disenfranchises some fraction of our citizens who voted in a Federal election.”