On May 7, the plaintiffs filed this 40-page brief in League of United Latin American Citizens v Abbott, w.d. Texas, 5:18cv-175. This sets forth why the plaintiffs believe that the winner-take-all system for choosing presidential electors in 48 states violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
There are similar cases pending in three other states. It just happens that the Texas case is the first one in which the plaintiffs have set forth their legal argument. All four cases have the same high-powered law firms working for the plaintiffs.
What is the short version of their argument? The Constitution explicitly gives each state the right to determine how it’s electors are chosen.
One more COMMUNIST machination —
more attempted perversions of the 1st, 14th and 15th Amdts — going on since 1968 Williams v Rhodes
—
Abolish the time bomb Electoral College.
Uniform definition of Elector-Voter in ALL of the USA.
PR and AppV.
Although the Constitution gives each state the right to determine how to choose presidential electors, when a state makes plans on how to do that, it must not violate any other party of the Constitution. In 1968 Ohio argued in the U.S. Supreme Court that Article II permitted it to keep all independent presidential candidates off the ballot and to require new or minor parties to submit a petition of 433,100 signatures by February of the election year. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Ohio law was unconstitutional because it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Williams v Rhodes.
While I support the Electoral College, I have been a long-time proponent of the Maine/Nebraska method of allocating one Electoral vote to each Congressional District, plus 2 statewide at-large Electoral votes representing the two Senators. If all states simultaneously adopted this procedure (or if the Supreme Court mandated it in response to this and similar lawsuits) it would produce at least some competitive district races in most states, without necessarily conferring a national advantage on either the Democrats or Republicans versus the status quo. For example, Republicans would lose votes in states like Texas, and Democrate would lose votes in states like California and New York. Presidential campaigns would no longer be concentrated in “swing” states; candidates would now have to go after “swing” districts in many more states. At the same time it would retain the advantages of the Electoral College, such as protecting the smaller states, and isolating voter fraud and limiting recounts to just a few districts.
Good argument, Daniel Wiener!
I think anything would be an improvement over the current system, including Daniel’s proposal. I tend to advocate something different: Proportional allocation of a state’s electors based on total votes cast within the state. One problem I see with all states going to a district system is that districts can be (and have been) gerrymandered, and this can affect the selection of electors. A proportional allocation based on the votes cast in a state would not be as susceptible to a state’s attempt at a partisan gerrymander. I also think it would be more friendly to third party candidates, giving them an opportunity to register electoral votes.
Better would to amend the Constitution to:
(a) Apportion electors among the States and territories on the basis of citizen voting age population, with at least one elector for every 20,000 such persons.
(b) Require that electors be chosen by popular vote, with voters eligible to vote for the chief executive officer of their state or territory eligible to vote for presidential elector;
(c) States and territories would have time, place, manner authority, subject to override by Congress.
(d)Presidential electors would meet to choose the president and vice president. Meetings could be physically separate as long as simultaneous communication is established.
Attention math MORONS –
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged gerrymander areas = 1/4 or less Control = ANTI-Democracy minority rule OLIGARCHY.
The Electoral College is one more of the EVIL/CORRUPT *compromises* in the top secret 1787 Fed convention of the gangster elites — esp from the slave States and small States.
The EC was modeled after the EVIL/CORRUPT method of choosing the monarchs in Germany and Poland in 1787.
other *compromise* corruptions –
slaves = 3/5 person for getting USA Reps, Min 1 Rep per State (no matter how small), 2 Senators per State (no matter how small), fugitive slave clause = Gangster OLIGARCHS at work.
—
PR and Appv
Also — TOTAL separation of powers —
NO Prez vetoes
NO Prez pardons (to be in Judges)
NO Prez appointments of Judges (to be elected)
The CRISIS is NOW —
just like the Brit CRISIS in 1688 with the wannabee Tyrant King James II regime.
He fled >>> 1689 English Bill of Rights Act — start of END of tyrant monarchy regimes in Europe
Will Trump flee to Russia or China ???