The exception being 1858 Illinois when the GOP held a convention and nominated Lincoln and the dems were certain to stick with Douglas. I'm sure there must have been other such cases.
Ironically, the GOP candidates won the popular vote for leg, implying Lincoln would have won a direct election, but dems retained a narrow majority of seats.
Of course even a GOP legislature would not have been bound to elect Lincoln just cause a state convention selected him.
Before the 17th some states started having non-binding elections and the legislatures ratified the choices. The people were really DEMANDING this reform. There was no way it wasn't gonna happen.
Very much agree with restricting the franchise. Welfare recipients especially shouldn't be able to vote. Going back up to 21 (or even a little higher maybe) isn't a bad idea either. I'm 35 now (as of Oct 6th, Can you can step aside Mike Pence? ;) ) so I no longer care whether young people can vote as I once did, I was so unhappy I was only 17 in 2000.
I was 18 in 2000 and voted, for all the good it did.