Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Cboldt

Personally I think that if we were to follow the original intent, each congressional district should elect one delegate and there should be a state wide election for two.

Originally the names of the electors were placed on the ballots and not the candidates.

But who follows original intent anymore?


243 posted on 01/18/2016 4:13:54 AM PST by P-Marlowe (Tagline pending.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies ]


To: P-Marlowe
Exactly, and to this day, I think the names of the electors are on the ballots that I cast.

I think you agree, the party nominees for president have no constitutional right to be named on the ballot, and the state can certainly remove them for cause. Cleaver was not going to be 35 on inauguration day, and his name was not permitted on a general election ballot.

That leaves the primaries, where the state may use its authority to create laws for conducting election. I would say that the state is the ultimate authority on the eligibility of the candidates. It does not have to (but customarily does) accept the certification of eligibility as conclusively true. There is no constitutional (NBC) violation, because the candidate has no right to have his name appear on the general election ballot anyway. The state has an interest in not enabling fraud.

I'm very open to correction on these general principles, but I think they are correct.

244 posted on 01/18/2016 4:21:43 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies ]

To: P-Marlowe

There are 435 electors, not 535. One for each district. Maine still operates district by district, has from it’s admission to the Union.


245 posted on 01/18/2016 4:23:19 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson