Pogo
Diamond Member
- Dec 7, 2012
- 123,708
- 22,749
Invalidating the popular vote of their citizens is irrelevant. The founders had no intention to have electors be bound to the popular vote of citizens.
Neither did the founders have any intention to have electoral votes distributed through Congressional districts. The two Constitutional options are direct popular vote within a State or a vote by its legislature. Invalidating the popular vote for President is not one of them.
There are no such "two Constitutional optiojns". You just optioned to pull that out of your ass. What the ACTUAL Constitution says is that each state chooses its electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" and says *NOTHING* about how they must direct it.
Do you deliberately misconstrue what I write or are you just too stupid to understand it? I did not say that the Constitution specifies two options for each state to choose its electors; I said that there were two options that were Constitutional.
Providing for a direct popular vote but then invalidating the results through Congressional District manipulations violates federal voting rights. In contrast, awarding Electoral votes on a proportional basis does not. We will have to see with which of us the Supreme Court agrees.
Again --- the Constitution says a state's electors are chosen, QUOTE, "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct", END QUOTE. It does not say anything about "but don't do it by district or proportional to the vote". It doesn't say anything about needing to hold a vote at all. Holding a popular vote IS an option; NOT holding a vote is an option; apportioning electors proportional to that vote IS an option; apportioning electors by district IS an option; apportioning EVs as WTA is unfortunately also an option. It's left wide open.