NO "Popular Vote" if states choose to have the Legislature Vote for Federal Offices

[RetiredGySgt]

Is it allowed? When they never had the right?

They had the right to vote for or pick, the Electors, never the right to vote for the president.

And when all citizens got the right to vote, it changed in each state, to the citizens voting for and picking the electors. In their state constitutions on most if not all.

The state legislatures would never ever ever, be allowed by their citizens, to take their citizen's right to vote away from them.

wrong all it would take is changing the law. It is not unconstitutional. Before 1830 half the states did NOT vote for President ever. And South Carolina did not change till 1861

 

[M14 Shooter]

State LEGISLATURES decide how their state elections are held.
Popular voting is unpopular, no matter who wins. The other side always cheated.
So how about a formal voice vote by state legislators to decide Federal Elections?

Prior to the civil war, several states did this.
Perfectly constitutional.

 

[White 6]

there would still be a popular vote for state legislatures

There will be a popular vote to directly select electors also, much safer than letting Partisan political hacks, thinking they owe allegiance to a party, rather than the people or the country. That is the way it should be.

 

[Darkwind]

You need to read your Constitution. You are dead wrong, yet again!

You don't know what you are talking about.

if you think that the Congress certifies votes cast by people, you are fucking delusional.

 

[struth]

There will be a popular vote to directly select electors also, much safer than letting Partisan political hacks, thinking they owe allegiance to a party, rather than the people or the country. That is the way it should be.

we already have that....when you go vote, the person with the majority of the votes, gets the electors.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You don't know what you are talking about.

if you think that the Congress certifies votes cast by people, you are fucking delusional.

The people elect a slate of electors who vote for President.

 

[BlindBoo]

What's wrong with allowing State legislatures to decide how the elections are held?

One unusual feature of the Elections Clause is that it does not confer the power to regulate congressional elections on states as a whole, but rather the “Legislature” of each state. The Supreme Court has construed the term “Legislature” extremely broadly to include any entity or procedure that a state’s constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power. Thus, laws regulating congressional elections may be enacted not only by a state’s actual legislature, but also directly by a state’s voters through the initiative process or public referendum, in states that allow such procedures.

The Court also has held that a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials. A few states have chosen to transfer power to draw congressional district lines from their respective legislatures to non-partisan or bipartisan “independent redistricting commissions.” These states believe that such commissions can make the electoral process more fair by preventing voters from being divided into congressional districts in ways that unduly protect existing officeholders (“gerrymandering”).

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

 

[White 6]

we already have that....when you go vote, the person with the majority of the votes, gets the electors.

As they rightly should, the decision directly represented by the people's vote, not the political whim of the state party.

 

[BlindBoo]

State legislatures can change their states' voting laws.

Not without changing the election laws of the state. Disenfranchising all the voter of a state of their national votes is not going to be a popular position.

Unless the SC reverses more long standing precedents.

 

[kyzr]

NO!
Becoming a State legislator is NOT "honest" in many states due to gerrymandering and they DO NOT represent their actual citizens proportionately. One man/woman, one vote!

1. I see typed words with no backup proving your assertion, so I call bullshit.
2. Both parties gerrymander.
3. The courts step in if its flagrant.

 

[kyzr]

Encounters DOES NOT mean the illegal is let in.
In 2022 fiscal year, 2.1million were ENCOUNTERED, but 1.3 million of the encountered were deported immediately, and returned to their nation and NOT LET IN.
800,000 were allowed to seek asylum with a Court date, Judge to determine... And over half of those seeking, will not be accepted by the immigration judge, and they too will be sent back to their nation.

You get 10 Pinocchios for that whopper. Again without proof.
Biden is flying migrants all over the US. Very few are being sent back.
Since you have no idea what the numbers are, look at the chart below.
2,776,000 encounters in 2022 (Not 2.1)
1,956,000 encounters in 2021

 

[WinterBorn]

the States can return to electing presidents via the legislature it is in allowed. And if the 17th is repelled, they can elect senators that way too,

The key being "And if the 17th is repealed...". Good luck getting the number of votes from the people you consider too stupid to vote for themselves.

 

[notmyfault2020]

State LEGISLATURES decide how their state elections are held.

Popular voting is unpopular, no matter who wins. The other side always cheated.

So how about a formal voice vote by state legislators to decide Federal Elections?

There would be no cheating because the votes would be public voice votes.

The vote counting would be simple, beyond reproach, and immediate.

I like the idea. No commercials. No phone calls.

No big money "Zuckerbucks" buying elections, just our elected state officials doing their jobs.

I don't get it so I am not voting or responding

I'm no dummy so if you could just ..maybe explicate further, I may be able to add my 2 cents worth

 

[kyzr]

Equal protection clause.

Meh. You may be right, but I'd still like to see states test that.
I'd love to see a recorded vote for a state's Electoral College votes.

 

[kyzr]

So take power away from people and give it to political elites? How generous.
This argument is similar to that of authoritarians, such as Putin, who claim that democratic rule is too chaotic and that undemocratic authoritarians provide necessary stability. I reject it.

Giving power back to the people, and taking it away from the billionaire oligarchs.
State legislators are not "political elites".
It would make local elections crucial, and make electing a president bulletproof from voter fraud.

 

[kyzr]

the States can return to electing presidents via the legislature it is in allowed. And if the 17th is repelled, they can elect senators that way too,

It would take 38 state legislatures and a Convention of States to modify amendments or approve new ones. I'm not seeing the math work out for either side. The good news is that there is progress to having a "Convention of States".

Progress Map: States that have passed the Convention of States Article V application

Once two-thirds (34) of the states pass our resolution, the convention will be called.

conventionofstates.com

 

[kyzr]

Is it allowed? When they never had the right?
They had the right to vote for or pick, the Electors, never the right to vote for the president.
And when all citizens got the right to vote, it changed in each state, to the citizens voting for and picking the electors. In their state constitutions on most if not all.
The state legislatures would never ever ever, be allowed by their citizens, to take their citizen's right to vote away from them.

Citizens would still have the right to vote, but for their state legislators, not for the president directly, except in their primaries.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The people elect a slate of electors who vote for President.

No the parties pick the slate and then whomever wins the state gets those people do not vote for electors directly

 

[kyzr]

Not without changing the election laws of the state. Disenfranchising all the voter of a state of their national votes is not going to be a popular position. Unless the SC reverses more long standing precedents.

You really think that people would mind not voting for presidents?
Only about 50% of eligible voters participate, and many out of a sense of duty, my wife could care less about politics, she asks me who to vote for.
Point being, that probably half the voters are "low information voters".
I'm sure that they would much prefer voting responsibility to be by the state legislators.
Look at how the 2020 election went, a senile always-wrong idiot is in the WH.
Bang-up job voters!!

What long standing USSC precedents?

 

[struth]

As they rightly should, the decision directly represented by the people's vote, not the political whim of the state party.

yeah what state has the state party making the choice? that literally makes zero sense