The smaller states should be screaming bloody murder and filing lawsuits.
The smaller states should be screaming bloody murder and filing lawsuits.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And they would be dismissed for lack of “standing”.
The smaller states should be screaming bloody murder and filing lawsuits.
Unfortunately, this is constitutional [unwise, but constitional nonetheless] - and NOT what the Founders wanted. But, the Constitution leaves it up to the States as to how their electors are chosen.
I am also not a fan of the current [in most cases, except ME and NE] winner-take-all system. It causes candidates to focus on the most populous areas within a State.
For example, I live in MD. If a candidate wins Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Montgomery County, and Prince Georges County - they win the State. The rest of the counties be damned.
A fairer system is as follows:
1. The Constitution provides that "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled ..."
2. Therefore, two of the electors in each state represent its two Senators and the rest represent its Representatives.
3. So, it would be fairer for the voters in each of a State's districts to vote for one elector [representing their district]. Just like they vote for their district's Representative. The two remaining electors would be awarded to the winner of the State's popular vote [just like they vote for their Senators].
If this system had been in place in 2008, Obama would have one 7-3, instead of 10-0. This is more representative of the political view of the State.