Posted on 05/15/2018 8:41:49 PM PDT by TBP
That would be the preferred outcome, but the Federal government does not have the authority to tell the states to do that. We just had a Supreme Court ruling saying that the Feddies cannot tell the states what laws to enact or not to enact.
Which, again, can be defeated by the provision that the states get to choose the manner of selecting their electors.
As opposed to the 304 he actually received.
But is upheld by the 12th Amendment.
Were it not for the 17th Amendment, the Republicans would have an even greater majority in the Senate. They fully control a majority of state legislatures (meaning 2 GOP senators from each of those states) and there are split legislatures (Dems control one house, Republicans the other) in a small number of states (meaning 1 Republican from each of those.)
Not particularly. The 12th Amendment says nothing about how the electors from a given state are to be distributed. If states want to do it some other way, do it. It’s just become convention that we do winner-take-all. And it’s easier for the idiot media.
“League of United Latin American Citizens “
No standing.
Next.
5.56mm
Which the 10th and 12th Amendments allow them to do. Since the 12th Amendment doesn't say how the electors are selected then the 10th Amendment gives the states the power to select the method. So sure, states can go winner-take-all, they can divvy them up by congressional districts, they can do what South Carolina did until the Civil War and give the legislature the power to decide. But regardless of how they do it it's not the court's place to say that their method has to be changed.
Some people would like to see them assigned proportionally. (For example, Maryland has 10 electors. if Trump gets 40 percent of the vote, he gets 4 of 10 electors, and the crazy person running against him gets the other 6.)
Bad idea, I think, and it somewhat undermines the function of the Electoral College, but states are free to do that too, if they choose.
You don’t really need the 10th or 12th amendment to establish this, although they certainly do so. The Constitution explicitly gives the states the right to determine how their electors shall be chosen.
Who would you sue if your state decided that the legislature alone would choose, and you had no vote at all?
-PJ
True. But,the district method is more representative of the will of the people.
Had district method been in place in 2012, Romney would have won.
Using the district method in 2016, Trump’s total would have been diminished by 14 - but still win.
The founding fathers explicitly did not want a national WTA system. It made the most populous states too powerful - hence the electoral college.
Since 48 states and DC have opted to allow their voters to select their electors, the WTA approach has descended to the state level, along with the fear that founding fathers had. The most populous areas within a state are too powerful.
I believe in making every vote count and to most accurately reflect the will of the people.
The best way to do this is to apportion the electoral votes on a district-by-district basis to the winner of each district. One vote per district. The remaining two electoral votes can either be given to the winner of the popular vote within the state or to the candidate who won the majority of districts in the state.
The will of the people within a state, either blue or red, is better served you this method. It makes the votes of citizens who live in districts dominated by the opposing party truly count. It encourages those citizens to vote since the electoral vote of their district will go to their candidate - even if their state is solidly for the opposition party.
Of course, this will require a constitutional amendment to do so.
To make every state do it would require a constitutional amendment. But two states already do it, so you can get legislatures to do it on a state-by-state basis without the need of an amendment. You might not be successful at that, however.
Remember, in the beginning, the legislatures chose the electors. They exercised their best judgment and were not bound in the same way they are now.
Understood. I want a constitutional amendment to put all states on equal footing and to have the will of the voters in each district heard. The
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.