Yes. Many states early on had the legislature pick their electors so there wasn't a popular vote. South Carolina didn't chose their electors by popular vote until 1868.
Article II, Section 1: 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.
Frivolous.
Though part of me wishes every state gave them out by congressional district. For example, California has fifty-five electoral votes. The winner of each of its fifty-three congressional districts gets one electoral vote per district won, and the statewide popular vote winner gets the two electoral votes represented by its Senators. That way, Republicans can be relevant in California and New York and Democrats in the South.
Plus it’d be funny to see pundits’ electoral maps built around all 435 congressional districts in addition to the fifty states.
That is not what is being chsllenged.
Since when has that mattered to the Left?
These idiots should be laughed out of court and then made to pay all court costs for engaging in sedition.
I actually agree with this brief, if it results in the following:
Electoral votes being awarded on a district-by-district basis. One vote per district. The remaining 2 electoral votes in each state being awarded to the winner of the popular vote in the state.
This way, minority-dominated district’s votes count [generally DEM] and, in blue states, GOP-DOMINATED districts have their votes counted too.
“This violates the constitutional principle of ‘one person, one
vote’ under the Fourteenth Amendment”
“In addition to these constitutional violations, Texas’s WTA law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it results in Hispanics and African-Americans ‘hav[ing] less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.’”
These two arguments contradict each other. African-American are like every other voter. They get one vote each. Their votes count exactly the same as everyone else.
A significant percentage of African-American voters are starting to support Donald Trump. There votes would count less (in the same way the plaintiffs are arguing that other African-Americans experience now) if “winner-take-all” was struck down.
The “winner-take-all” approach does give more clout to the majority in a state, but no individual is disenfranchised of his or her right to participate in the process. Every individual has the exact same voting power, as it should be.
The only way the logic of the Plaintiffs could be validated is if the comparison is made between the voting power of individuals in one state not being equal to the voting power of individuals in another state. This is because in every scenario within a state, you have winners and losers. And not being in the majority means being a loser in a democratic election by definition. But this is innate to the electoral college and the Constitutional provision for states determining their own methodology.
Some blacks vote Republican. Some whites vote Democrat. All ethnicities vote all kinds of ways. Many people choose not to vote at all.
The arguments being used are a bait and switch in which individual votes and collective voting preferences are interchanged whenever it best suits the arguments of the Plaintiff.
Hispanics and African-Americans still get one vote each. Just like any other cross section of society, they do not get to put their thumb on the scale because they are a minority.
Imagine applying the same logic to any category of people. For example, let’s suppose plant workers almost universally vote a certain way. And let’s also suppose that the majority in their state tend to vote in a different way. Well, the plant workers are not in the majority and will not win the elections in which the majority votes differently from them. This is not discriminatory. It is the precise way democratic elections work.
The founders did not create a coalition government. They specified an electoral college which is allocated as states choose.
LULAC is for Hispanics only. In other words, it is just as racist as La Raza.
Can we get it designated as a “hate group”? Calling Southern Poverty Law Center. Can you help? No, you don’t go after anti-American groups. OK, comrades.
Leftist: “The Constitution is unconstitutional!”
Collusion.
Conspiracy.
Authoritarianism.
But is upheld by the 12th Amendment.
“League of United Latin American Citizens “
No standing.
Next.
5.56mm
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.