27.1  MYTH: Use of the winner-take-all rule permits replacement of a dead, disabled, or discredited President-Elect between Election Day and the meeting of the Electoral College, but the National Popular Vote compact does not.

QUICK ANSWER:

MORE DETAILED ANSWER:

UCLA Law Professor Daniel H. Lowenstein points out that use of the winner-take-all rule permits replacement of a dead, disabled, or discredited President-Elect after the people vote in November, but before the Electoral College meets in December.

Lowenstein says that this feature of the Electoral College is:

“what might someday turn out to be the Electoral College’s greatest benefit.”

Lowenstein continues:

“What is needed for such problems is a political solution. And the Electoral College is ideal for the purpose. The decision would be made by people in each state selected for their loyalty to the presidential winner. Therefore, abuse of the system to pull off a coup d’etat would be pretty much out of the question. But in a situation in which the death, disability or manifest unsuitability plainly existed, the group would be amenable to a party decision, which seems to me the best solution.”

The National Popular Vote compact would not abolish the Electoral College. It would reform the method of choosing the presidential electors so that they reflect the choice of all the people of the United States, instead of the choice of the people on a state-by-state basis using the winner-take-all rule.

Therefore, the National Popular Vote compact does not eliminate the ability of the Electoral College to perform the function envisioned by Professor Lowenstein. Under the National Popular Vote compact, presidential electors associated with the political party that just won the national election would be available to replace a dead, disabled, or discredited President-Elect.