In 2008, Bush v. Gore Redux (Democrats Shudder In The Face Of Almost Certain Defeat)

New York Times ^ | 22 September 2007 | Bob Herbert

[roamer_1]

Likewise, the electoral college was designed to prevent more populous states from running roughshod over less populated states.

I understand that- and it does nothing to remove any right from the state whatsoever. The state still determines the electors, still runs the show. How does this damage the state at all?

It does naught but to restore some representation to rural areas of that state, within the state's sovereignty.

Our fathers were some pretty smart folks, but I doubt they could foresee a time when a city became so populous as to overpower the state electorally. Especially so when considering the size of Western/Midwestern states.

[LS]

No, the state really does not “run the show.” The “people” would in such a setup. The Constitution is set up the way it is to retain individual state identities and power centers over generalized population tyranny.

[roamer_1]

No, the state really does not “run the show.” The “people” would in such a setup.

Your contention must be w/ the referendum electing to establish a split electorate then, no?

[LS]

Only if a referendum contradicts the letter or the spirit of the Constitution. For example, a referendum would have no authority to deny people their right to own a gun.

[roamer_1]

Only if a referendum contradicts the letter or the spirit of the Constitution.

Forgive me if I am being obtuse, I am trying to understand:

If the state legislature elects to divide their electoral votes in the manner described herein, as is their right, would you still object to this? Is it simply the idea of using a referendum to do so that bothers you, or do you require that the state leave it's electoral votes whole?

[LS]

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, just a historian. My sense of the HISTORY of the Constitutional Convention is that the intent was to protect the states as institutions, even from themselves if necessary. Just as a state legislature (IMHO) can make no law infringing on the right to bear arms or on basic "civil rights," neither can a state legislature circumvent the Constitution by depriving ALL of its citizens their Constitutional right of one man one vote.

Now, strangely enough, in this case "one man one vote" means an electoral vote selected by a majority of the voters in that state when it comes to the electoral college. I realize Nebraska is different---but perhaps no one has yet brought a constitutional challenge to their system. I don't know. I just think that the SPIRIT of the constitution is such that a proportional system violates the principle of the electoral college.

[roamer_1]

I don't know. I just think that the SPIRIT of the constitution is such that a proportional system violates the principle of the electoral college.

Thank you. I see your point, and I tend to agree with you.

However, I find it hard to believe that the framers themselves, had they foreseen the mighty influence of the cities in state and federal politics, wouldn't have made some allowance to offset that power.

Something must be done, and soon, for we are desperately close to a point wherein the opinion of a few cities are going to be enough to control even the federal elections. When that happens we will see true disenfranchisement on a national scale.

[LS]

Considering that most of the Federalists were in New York and Boston, plus Philadlephia and Hartford, I disagree. I think the Founders knew exactly that large cities would dominate states in a short time.

The trick is to again find ways to win the large cities.