3 ms·

It has always been up to the states how they apportioned their electoral votes, and it has gone through many different versions to arrive where we are now, incl

It has always been up to the states how they apportioned their electoral votes, and it has gone through many different versions to arrive where we are now, including electors being independent of the actual popular vote, and allowing faithless electors. It was only in the late 19th century that states began apportioning all of their electors as a block to the winner, rather than by district. The constitution leaves it to the states.

anon291 2y ago
I mean sure and I believe states do have a right to choose their own electors. However, the issue is running an election and then aggregating the results with the other states. An election is a legal event and the constitution requires the states to conduct elections in a representative format, which is violated if they then defer to the electoral results of another state. On the other hand if the representatives of that state decide who the electors will vote for, that is still a representative form of government in which only the citizens of that state are represented.
- haroldp 2y ago
  > An election is a legal event and the constitution requires the states to conduct elections in a representative format, which is violated if they then defer to the electoral results of another state. The history of the Electoral College seems very much at odds with that notion. Indeed, the current state of the Electoral College is at odds with it, since the states mostly switched to winner-take-all apportionment about 100 years ago, and now we regularly get outcomes where the winner of the popular vote is not the winner of the Electoral College.
  - anon291 2y ago
    You're still electing representatives, but the scope of the election has changed (statewide rather than district wide). That's not the issue. The states can choose to elect electors statewide if they want to. The issue is choosing electors based on foreign voters. Here's another way to think about it. Is it legal for the American president to be chosen by worldwide vote? As far as the states are concerned, other states are a foreign sovereignty

anon291 2y ago

I mean sure and I believe states do have a right to choose their own electors. However, the issue is running an election and then aggregating the results with the other states. An election is a legal event and the constitution requires the states to conduct elections in a representative format, which is violated if they then defer to the electoral results of another state. On the other hand if the representatives of that state decide who the electors will vote for, that is still a representative form of government in which only the citizens of that state are represented.

haroldp 2y ago
> An election is a legal event and the constitution requires the states to conduct elections in a representative format, which is violated if they then defer to the electoral results of another state. The history of the Electoral College seems very much at odds with that notion. Indeed, the current state of the Electoral College is at odds with it, since the states mostly switched to winner-take-all apportionment about 100 years ago, and now we regularly get outcomes where the winner of the popular vote is not the winner of the Electoral College.
- anon291 2y ago
  You're still electing representatives, but the scope of the election has changed (statewide rather than district wide). That's not the issue. The states can choose to elect electors statewide if they want to. The issue is choosing electors based on foreign voters. Here's another way to think about it. Is it legal for the American president to be chosen by worldwide vote? As far as the states are concerned, other states are a foreign sovereignty