Posted on 06/23/2010 9:12:23 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
Let me take these one at a time.
I'm not mixing anything.
The Constitution does not give the states any authority to "allocate" Senators. The number of Senators is fixed at two. So you are mixing scenarios by comparing the Constitutionaly-granted states' right to choose the method of selecting electors with the Constitutionally fixed allotment of Senators that the states cannot alter. Suggesting that states might choose to allocate Senators is a false discussion.
You're refusing to look at the intent of the founders...
The founders' intent is clear, as they wrote it into the Constitution. Each state can choose for itself the method of selecting electors. We focused on the winner-take-all vs. proportional allocation, but that is just a way to divide the votes. The states are also choosing between the popular vote process and the caucus process to determine electors, so there are at least three different ways that are currently in practice.
The founders meant for the states, as sovereign governments, to choose for themselves how to select their electors.
...why we have some representation based on population, and some based upon individual states, in both Congress and the Electoral College.
I'm well aware of this, and am a die-hard supporter of the Electoral College. I'm simply saying that the states have the right to choose for themselves how to select their electors, which is what you initially challenged.
You support your challenge with absurd choices that I believe no rational state would choose to do. I showed at least three different methods in place today that states use to select their Electors.
I don't understand what we're arguing about.
-PJ
The current system restricts fraud to the state/district level instead of magnifying it on a national scale.
Yours is a lousy idea, and you should peddle your self-interest elsewhere.
Btt
You still have to address the compact issue.
As I said earlier, if each state chose on its own to enact this regardless of whether other states choose to or not, then you are correct that there are no constitutional issues.
It's when they make the terms conditional on a number of other states also agreeing to it, that it runs into the compacts clause.
-PJ
I agree with this statement.
The President was not meant to be the ruler of the People, the President was meant to be Executive of the federation of states, dealing with interstate issues and international issues on behalf of all the states.
The several states were meant to be the government that ruled the people on a day-to-day basis.
This is why the Electoral College was designed to be a state-by-state body, not a people-at-large body, since its function was to choose the Executive of the federal government.
-PJ
Exactly. This bears repeating. Nowadays some want a President to be our Nanny-in-Chief and national rock star.
The several states were meant to be the government that ruled the people on a day-to-day basis.
Well played.
Yeah - but that doesn't happen too often in MD ...
I have always been a fan of the representative vote. Each state gets a number of electoral votes equal to its representation in the House of Representatives plus two for its Senators.
I would like to see the candidate that wins in a particular district wins the electoral vote for that district. The candidate who wins the popular vote for the state gets a "bonus" of the two electoral votes representing the Senators.
If that had happened in 2008, the electoral apportionment in MD would have been 6-4 for Obama - not 10-0 as it was ...
Currently [in MD], whoever wins Balitmore, Montgomery, and Prince Georges Counties plus the Baltimore City wins all of the electoral votes for the state. This does not reflect the electorate's will.
The state legislatures already have the authority to allocate their own electoral votes any way they choose.
Do they? The constitution clearly gives each state the right to determine how to select their electors. But how to allocate those electors, once the voters or caucuses have made their will known? Winner-take-all and by congressional district is used now, and some allocation methods would probably be constitutional, but I do not believe the states have, or should have, unlimited power to determine how the electors should be allocated to the candidates.
If so, then these methods would be fine:
1. Give all the electoral votes to the candidate receiving the fewest votes from the voters.
2. Give all the electoral votes to some favorite of the governor or key legislators, who didn't even run for president in the state.
3. Spread the electors equally among the candidates, no matter how many votes they received.
4. Spread the electors the same way as the governor's favorite other state did.
5. Or, spread the electors based on the total national popular vote.
As sensitive as the issues of voter rights and voter disenfranchisement are, I do not believe for a second that states have, or should have, just unrestricted rights in how to allocate delegates among the various presidential candidates. This would be tested in court, because as with most things, every possible detail for consideration in 2010 is not covered in the constitution.
The Constitution does not give the states any authority to "allocate" Senators
No idea where you got that. I've talked about allocating electors among candidates, but nothing about allocating senators, unless as a hypothetical saying it would be similar to basing the selection of EC electors entirely on the popular vote, as this harebrained proposal would practically do for participating states.
The popular vote is a democracy, the worst form of government ever created!
I was taught in school that democracy was a dirty word!
This isn’t currently a Republican form of government, it’s a constitutional republic.
There’s no such thing as a Republican form of government!
No idea where you got that.
I got that from your #63: "Don't think so. And if you believe that, maybe you also think it would be constitutional to reallocate the number of US senators based on population, without a constitutional amendment."
But how to allocate those electors, once the voters or caucuses have made their will known?
You do raise an interesting nuance. I think the original electors were not "allocated" at all. They were men who were sent to the Electoral College to vote their conscience for the candidates they felt were most capable to be president. They may have had "instructions" or not, but they were chosen from the non-political-class population to be unbiased selectors of the president.
Today, while preserving the Electoral College weightings of votes, we find ourselves with states forming multiple "slates" of electors, depending on who wins the state's elections. I remember discussions back in 2000 of Florida sending two delegations of electors to the Electoral College because of the disputed election. To that effect, it just becomes a numbers game with the actual electors being sent on a paid vacation. That's where the concept of "faithless elector" comes from.
I don't think the founders expected slates of electors. I think they expected people to vote for electors (who were educated, worldly, and knew something about the candidates and their character) who would go to the Electoral College and vote their conscience. Again today, we have substituted the candidates' names on the ballot for the electors, instead of voting for electors directly.
-PJ
Maine and Nebraska currently use this (or very similar) system.
That remark simply meant that if one choses to ignore the weighting between population and state interest in allocating electors (as this proposed scheme would), then the same folks might want to ignore it in the allocation of senators among the states.
I don't much will be learned by continuing this exchange. You just believe the states can go further in allocating electors among candidates in today's environment than I do. But, if such borderline allocation methods are tried, the constitutionality will really depend on the make-up of whatever court might finally decide it.
I'm sure a bunch of leftist judges would like to get rid of the weighting given to states and give more weight to the nationwide popular vote, since our mega-population states all lean very much to the left except for Texas, and Florida a toss up. But NY, California and Illinois are a huge start for a liberal candidate.
However, in 2012 when a bunch of liberal states are forced to give their votes to a Republican, the system will fall apart.
Thank you for the civil debate. I always enjoy a good thought discussion.
-PJ
Yeah - but I think they apportion all of the electoral votes based on the strict percentage of the vote state-wide. Therefore, the most populous areas within a state necessarily influence the outcome to a great extent.
With district apportionment, the most populous areas within a state only influence the award of the two votes that represent the Senators of that state. The other votes representing the House Districts are awarded to whomever actually wins in a given district ...
Ditto .
That's exactly what I said waaaay back when this 'Compact Among States' was first floated after Dubya won.
sorry for the very tardy reply, I just saw the thread.
Right now, the Democratic urban machines can inflate the popular vote to ensure that the Democrat carries their state (most of the time), but in some states (like NY) it's already a foregone conclusion that the Democrat will win the electoral votes so padding the vote totals isn't necessary.
Under this proposal, there would be an added incentive for vote fraud, since the higher total would affect the electoral votes of other states as well. We would see 100% turnouts routinely in the big cities. The winner won't need 50%, just a plurality.
The conservative (so-called Red States) need to plan on seceding from the union if they ever do that. Without the electoral college NYC, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and all the rest of the leftist population centers will elect the President from now on. Conservatives will never be elected.
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.