> Subject to the certification only procedure outlined in the Constitution, as was recently vividly demonstrated. (Originally, under Article II, Section 1, Clau

> Subject to the certification only procedure outlined in the Constitution, as was recently vividly demonstrated. (Originally, under Article II, Section 1, Clause 3; since 1804, under the 12th Amendment) This stance is nonsense. Bush v Gore, Jackson v Adams, and Hayes v Tilden prove it wrong by vesting in Congress, through prior case law, the power to choose Presidential appointment and nullifying both individual state Electors AND collective certification (depending on which of the three you're pointing at). Congress itself dictates who is President and Supreme Court Justices through a de-facto oligarchy. Further, the 17th amendment mandated a popular election for Senators in 1913, so to say that States run their elections as they see fit is - generous. Plus, need we mention the upcoming conflict of independent state legislature theory? We'll see how that cooks up. Also, people make the mistake of believing that direct-democratic elections for members of Congress means that such a superior-leveraged branch of the government is still technically structured as a republic in political theory. This position is scrutinized when considering that the democratically-elected members of Congress conspire to derive additional power amongst each other by sitting the utmost authorities in the branches of government that are also intended to be chosen, by the people, as a check and balance to the very members of Congress they voted in. It's a very complex edifice, but it sure isn't what it's advertised as.