I’m not sure I follow this.
Would this law make it theoretically possible for 100% of the state of Massachusetts to have voted for candidate x, but the state’s delegates be awarded to candidate y because 51% of the nation did?
“I’m not sure I follow this.
Would this law make it theoretically possible for 100% of the state of Massachusetts to have voted for candidate x, but the state’s delegates be awarded to candidate y because 51% of the nation did?”
Yes, it would. Do you “follow it” now?
I know that the Constitution permits states to select electors for the Electoral College as they choose.
But - in cases where a majority in a given state clearly votes for candidate A, and the “law” in that states says that electors must vote for candidate B because he/she won a majority of votes in _other states_ - I believe such a law could be challenged in federal (and eventually the U.S. Supreme) court on the basis that it negates _another_ state obligation under the Constitution: that citizens of the states be guaranteed a “representative” form of government.
I’m just a dumb neanderthal, but seems to me that ANY law within a state which mandates that the votes of a majority of its citizens be negated would be in direct violation of the Constitution due to the “representative form of government” clause.
- John
YES.
That is exactly what it would do.
One of the deeper ideas in the Constitution is the balance it establishes between the interests of geographic regions and population centers through the construction of the House of Representatives and the Congress. This rule, if enacted, would remove any vestige of that balance in the Presidential election process.
It would also make the temptation for massive vote fraud great. Think of past close elections... Kennedy/Nixon, Bush/Gore ... and how big an influence politically motivated decisions could have on the vote -- such as keeping city polls open a few hours later. And then, think of the problems with vote tabulation. The mess this would make is obvious.