You care to point out the clause of the Constitution with this requirement?
In actual fact, as opposed to revisionist history, the Constitution leaves it entirely up to each individual state how its electors are chosen. There are still several states that are not "winner take all." Maine is one, but I believe there are several.
“You care to point out the clause of the Constitution with this requirement?
In actual fact, as opposed to revisionist history, the Constitution leaves it entirely up to each individual state how its electors are chosen. There are still several states that are not “winner take all.” Maine is one, but I believe there are several.”
Which is why in 1864 when Lincoln again lost in New Jersey, all 7 votes went to McClellan? And in 1856, when Buchanan beat Fremont and Fillmore, all 7 went to Buchanan?
New Jersey law was explicit in 1860 - which is why the 4 who voted for Lincoln in opposition to the statewide vote are considered “faithless electors”. Just one irregularity on top of a large number of irregularities.
There is a bill floating around in the Pennsylvania legislature right now to assign electoral votes by congressional districts with the two senate votes going to the state wide popular vote winner. If that had been the case last election, Romney would have had at lest half the electoral votes in the state. Big cities vs. suburbs vs. ex-burbs vs. rural. I do know that Obama and the Democrats are isolated at least geographically in very small enclaves.
Needless to say, the Philadelphia delegation and their numerous dead voters are very much opposed to that idea. ;~))