Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Sherman Logan
Sherman Logan said: "How the electors were chosen was left entirely up to each state, so it is quite impossible to make any blanket statement about how they were chosen."

Quite impossible to conclude that the party controlling the legislature would control the choosing of the electors? As has been pointed out, there is no Constitutional requirement for "winner take all" in any given state. The reason we see "winner take all" is because of the legislatures' control of the process.

50 posted on 02/13/2014 10:52:59 AM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]


To: William Tell

You are quite correct that the legislature, which of course means in practice the party controlling that legislature, decided how electors were chosen.

My point was not to dispute that, but rather to point out that there was no national consistency at all. Methods varied by state, and might change from one election to the next within a state.

My larger original point was that the EC was most definitely not initially a “winner take all” by state system.

This is perhaps best illustrated by the 1824 election, which gave votes to four candidates. Six of the states split their votes, and NY split its EC votes among all four candidates!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1824

Two states, ME and NE, still do not have winner take all elections to the EC. Their electors are chosen by congressional district, with two also chose by statewide popular vote.


52 posted on 02/13/2014 11:18:40 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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