Posted on 02/21/2018 2:40:45 PM PST by SMGFan
A coalition that includes a Latino membership organization and a former Massachusetts governor filed lawsuits on Wednesday challenging how four U.S. states allocate their Electoral College votes in presidential elections. The lawsuits were filed in federal courts in Massachusetts and California, states that went for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016, and South Carolina and Texas, where a majority of votes went to Republican U.S. President Donald Trump.
The lawsuits challenge the winner-take-all system used in those states to select electors who cast votes for president and vice president in the Electoral College after a presidential election. Forty-four other states and the District of Columbia also use that system.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
“... My idea is ... “
-
Glad you are not in charge.
The system should be left alone, before someone truly screws it up.
2: 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 in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.There is NO requirement that there even BE a popular vote. The state legislature can hold a vote among themselves and decide who gets their electoral vote. There are a number of states (PA, for example) where the popular vote went to Trump in a squeeker, but where the state legislature itself is solidly Republican due to Dems being concentrated in cities.
If we followed the money trail for this nonsense to its source, would we find that the “funders” speak Russian?
Pure bravo sierra!! James Wilson of PA was among the very few who trusted the people to elect a President. The purpose of the EC was to elevate a man of honor, proven ability, and someone unattached to a factional political party to the Presidency.
Their constitutional right? If that were true, you should be able to find a clause in the actual Constitution to support Bois' claim. I have never seen such a clause.
In fact, the constitution doesn't even have a clause requiring the Electors to vote according to the vote results in their State. Any such requirement would be found in State legislation, so it would not be a constitution right.
It seems Dims have a fantasy dream and then write it up as lawsuit.
That works, but I’m partial to the EV by district, 2 to the overall popular vote winner in the state. If you look at the congressional races in recent years, or the red/blue map after the election it would make a strong argument that Obama would most likely have lost in 2012 and possibly in 2008.
This is a nonjusticeable political question.
“One man, one vote” is not part of the Constitution.
My first thought too....
“The Left never quit”
The State Legislature can appoint electors using any method they choose.
It’s in the living and breathing rat constitution that supersedes our Constitution. It is why the shape of congressional districts is still a cage fight in many states some eight years after the last census, and why several states face bankruptcy.
“If anything, the EC should be strengthened.”
Absolutely. It’s the only way to have representative government in a country with highly populated urban areas in which the lifestyle, beliefs, and voting patterns are at odds with most of the rest of the nation.
And raise the voting age to 30.
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...”
Not much room for interpretation there. Did the Legislature for the state pick this method? Yes? Case dismissed!
It is now.
In Reynolds v. Sims, the Warren Court interpreted the 14th Amendment, in a decision that one justice labeled as "grotesque," to apply to all bodies not exempted by the Constitution itself. We know it as "one man/one vote." It is now a part of case law and is cited in precedents, such as in this case.
The Senate is exempt from Reynolds, and even Article V forbids the end of equal representation in the Senate unless states deprived of it are willing to ratify such a change. That would mean unanimous consent.
The Electoral College is exempt from Reynolds because the state legislatures have a plenary and non-justiciable right to appoint electors.
Why?
Do you think you are smarter than the founders?
Or do you think the Constitution is a “Living and Breathing” document?
Making us like the Hunger Games.
When has that ever been a Constitutional right?
The annoying thing is that these lawsuits are headed up by David Boies, who knows better.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.