tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6343260240753282973.post4887660901677459840..comments2023-10-21T03:57:54.994-07:00Comments on Lexicon Daily: How to amend the Constitution without amending the ConstitutionRich Rifkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16194415374836833831noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6343260240753282973.post-65874314028111240672011-04-05T09:06:20.669-07:002011-04-05T09:06:20.669-07:00state-by-state winner-take-all laws to award elect...state-by-state winner-take-all laws to award electoral college votes, are an example of state laws eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.<br /><br />After days of debating and rejecting possible methods for selecting the President, the Founding Fathers at the Constitutional Convention left the entire matter to the states by only saying in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." That’s all the Constitution says about what we now call the Electoral College. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."<br /><br />The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century. <br /><br /><br />Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election. <br /><br />In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.<br /><br />The winner-take-all method is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. <br /><br />The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes. <br /><br />As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.totohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12247335901450384827noreply@blogger.com