What part of “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct” are you having trouble with?
So, your answer is yes to all three? Let’s be clear here.
This does open a whole new chapter of Constitutional Interpretation. The Constitution says that each House of Congress can set its own rules. That must mean that the Senate could, for example, set a rule that “votes will not be counted from Senators who are Jews or Negroes”.
So you do have a substantive question in there somewhere? One that’s actually leading to a point, not just stalling and handwaving? Yes, do please be clear here.
If you’re somehow claiming that a legislature can’t do something ridiculous, fine, except for the numberless counterexamples. Unless that’s somehow linked to a claim of the national popular vote being equally ridiculous, you’re wasting time.
Still wondering who’d file suit where, claiming what. Or what national legislation would override it. Oh well, didn’t expect it.
Except for the simple fact that the United States is NOT a democracy. Never has been (by design) and hopefully never will be.
It wasn’t designed to let women or blacks vote, either. But we fixed that. This is just the next step.
We fixed it by amending the Constitution. If we amended the Constitution to get rid of the electoral college, I probably wouldn’t object too loudly.
No, I’m not claiming that at all (Ephasis added). States do that all the time. I’m claiming that the state Legislatures can’t do something that violates the Constitution. You know, like the parts about “Establishment of Religion”, “No religious test” and “Equal Protection”.
I don’t know if you somehow think that consistency of ignorance is some sort of virtue, but it isn’t. I’m honestly too embarrassed to continue this conversation any further.
So you admit that at the Constitutional Convention we gave smaller states a bump in power, yet in the very next paragraph you make a sarcastic comment as if direct democracy is clearly the system of government we have?
That slave state of Connecticut was the one that proposed that each state have equal say, btw, but the compromise gave us what we have now: a slight increase in power for rural states, not state by state equality.
The bottom line is that we would never have had, nor would we continue to have, a union of states if California and New York could just force everything down the throats of those in “flyover” country.
That was the deal when we formed this country, and the small states are not going to agree to change it.
Good. Except that the Constitution explicitly *provides *for them to direct the manner of appointing electors. They can’t violate it by definition. Clear now?
Yes, you *should *be embarrassed by your performance here. Try coming up with an argument *first *next time.
So they’re going to secede again? Yeehaw.
The argument against strengthening our democracy, in favor instead of retaining excess minority power and its parochial interests, has resonance only there, and not unanimously, either.
Not really. The Constitution was fixed so that women and blacks could not be prevented from voting because they were women or black. But “mere” state law allowed them to vote. 30 states permitted women to vote in the 1916 Presidential election which was the last before the the 19th Amendment was passed. State laws can fix things provided they don’t do so in Unconstitutional manners. As the states are allowed to chose their electors in a manner of their choosing, presumably it does not take an Amendment to allow them to choose in the way this proposal directs.
Also not addressed in response to the issues here, but some people seem to think that each state has a slate of electors who are directed how to vote. This is not true. Each candidate has a slate of electors picked before the election and “pledged” to him/her. It is those electors who are chosen to cast the electoral ballots. This makes it less likely there will be a faithless elector just because state X is so red or blue.
I was actually asked to be such an elector this past election for a minor candidate who had no chance of winning my state, but had to decline because I was not going to be available on the date where I’d have to travel to Hartford CT. He kept badgering me that he wasn’t going to win so my pledge didn’t matter at all. I countered with I wasn’t going to agree to commit to something I knew I couldn’t fulfill regardless, and if there weren’t at least 9 people in the state he could find to agree to be electors, he should just drop off the ballot.
It has been pointed out in this thread about twenty times that this power is not absolute and is further subject to the compact clause.
No state could say that a panel of ten black, Protestant, heterosexual, female citizens gets to picks its electors. A state can certainly violate the clause.
Not secede, just not approve.
It has been asserted, yes. But not supported.
Okay, where do you get *that *from?
Then tough noogies.
I’m looking at the list of states that have enacted this proposal, and it doesn’t seem so far that the small states are especially unlikely to approve. Three of the ten states that have done so have 3 or 4 electoral votes.
The only states that approved it are heavily Democratic leaning states. That is the key, and there are not enough of those to make this thing work.
That’s enough, Elvis. Don’t be a jerk.
The post that was responding to wasn’t? Okay then.
Great. So you are aware of the two provisions that bear on this question.
Are are aware of the rule of construction in which courts are required to give equal standing to all parts of any law, so as not to render one part of the law superfluous? Do you understand why that is important to this issue?
If you do have an argument, you’re invited to present it. Any time at all. Do please tell us - without being a jerk, mind - how the Constitution’s own definition of the authority for choosing electors is not definitive on the subject of the authority for choosing electors. And it had better be a good one, too, after all this buildup.
Is that the rule where, if two parts of the constitution appear to be in conflict, you get to pick the part that aligns with your political bias and ignore the part that doesn’t?