Guest Commentary by Bill Ritter
Currently there is an attempt in California by Republican lawyers and political operatives to change the way only California’s presidential electors are to be selected. They have begun to circulate petitions for an initiative entitled the “Presidential Election Reform Act” (PERA). PERA’s sponsors — the misleadingly-named “Californians for Equal Representation” — hope to qualify it for the June 2008 primary ballot.
Current California election law and that of 48 other states dictates that the highest vote getter for the presidency wins all of those state’s electors. Here in California, this “winner takes all” rule would be changed to allow each congressional district to elect one presidential elector creating the situation in which nearly 20 out of 53 California congressional districts could be won by the Republican presidential candidate due to those district’s high Republican registration numbers and voting history and thereby awarded a Republican presidential elector. This would create separate “winner take all” elections in every California congressional district. But across America, for example in historically Republican majority states such as Ohio, Indiana, Missouri and most of the western states and all of the southern states including Florida would remain “winner take all” states, thereby disenfranchising their Democratic presidential voters and favoring Republican presidential candidates.
If we are to have authentic presidential election reform we need a national change affecting all states whereby every vote is counted in the same manner equally throughout America. That is the only way to ensure fairness to all.
An excellent and informative article on the subject is written by Mr. Vikram David Amar entitled “The So-Called Presidential Election Reform Act: A Clear Abuse of California’s Initiative Process.”
He writes:
Transparent Partisan Ploys Interfere With Legitimate Reform Efforts: This Isn’t an Issue of National Electoral Reform, But of Turning a Blue State Partially Red
……if moving away from winner-take-all rules made policy sense for the country, surely blue states should not do so if red states are not doing so as well. It is neither fair nor sensible to think that California Democrats, who hold a majority in the state, should unilaterally give up their clout in electing a President if Republican majorities in other states are not doing the same thing in states they control. It is more than ironic that an organization that calls itself “Californians for Equal Representation” could support a scheme that would produce such partisan inequality.
One cardinal rule about Presidential electoral reform today ought to be that it must not predictably and intentionally disadvantage one party over the other. Sensible change in this area is hard enough to accomplish without wasting our time on obviously partisan ploys.
Real Reform Would Involve A Direct National Popular Election
Which brings me to the real way to make every vote count and encourage Presidential candidates to campaign in California – adopt the national popular election plan (and which is also being considered by legislators in California right now.) If the national popular vote winner were automatically made President, every voter’s vote nationwide would count – and count for the same thing. (There’s something Californians truly dedicated to “Equal Representation” should rally around.)
The “Bushies” are at it again. If you can’t win and you know you can’t win then change the rules, confuse voters and have a election that is not fair or transparent. It seems to be their MO.
Voters better keep their eye on this. It’s serious.
The “Bushies” are at it again. If you can’t win and you know you can’t win then change the rules, confuse voters and have a election that is not fair or transparent. It seems to be their MO.
Voters better keep their eye on this. It’s serious.
The “Bushies” are at it again. If you can’t win and you know you can’t win then change the rules, confuse voters and have a election that is not fair or transparent. It seems to be their MO.
Voters better keep their eye on this. It’s serious.
The “Bushies” are at it again. If you can’t win and you know you can’t win then change the rules, confuse voters and have a election that is not fair or transparent. It seems to be their MO.
Voters better keep their eye on this. It’s serious.
Congressional allocation of electoral votes is nothing more than a power play by a state’s minority party. The Republicans in California are trying to do it by initiative. The Democrats in North Carolina (a red presidential state) tried to do it through legislation. It is a partisan solution to a non-partisan problem.
The real solution is to move to a direct national popular vote for President. That system would eliminate the reality of “battleground” and “safe” states. Every voter would become a battleground as each candidate would be competing for each vote, not for a given state or congressional district. Under a national popular vote system, every vote would be equal. The candidate with the most votes would win.
A group called National Popular Vote (www.nationalpopularvote.com) is trying to implement just such a change. There are identical bills pending in more than 40 states. They have received positive mention in the NY Times, LA Times and a bunch of other papers.
Congressional allocation of electoral votes is nothing more than a power play by a state’s minority party. The Republicans in California are trying to do it by initiative. The Democrats in North Carolina (a red presidential state) tried to do it through legislation. It is a partisan solution to a non-partisan problem.
The real solution is to move to a direct national popular vote for President. That system would eliminate the reality of “battleground” and “safe” states. Every voter would become a battleground as each candidate would be competing for each vote, not for a given state or congressional district. Under a national popular vote system, every vote would be equal. The candidate with the most votes would win.
A group called National Popular Vote (www.nationalpopularvote.com) is trying to implement just such a change. There are identical bills pending in more than 40 states. They have received positive mention in the NY Times, LA Times and a bunch of other papers.
Congressional allocation of electoral votes is nothing more than a power play by a state’s minority party. The Republicans in California are trying to do it by initiative. The Democrats in North Carolina (a red presidential state) tried to do it through legislation. It is a partisan solution to a non-partisan problem.
The real solution is to move to a direct national popular vote for President. That system would eliminate the reality of “battleground” and “safe” states. Every voter would become a battleground as each candidate would be competing for each vote, not for a given state or congressional district. Under a national popular vote system, every vote would be equal. The candidate with the most votes would win.
A group called National Popular Vote (www.nationalpopularvote.com) is trying to implement just such a change. There are identical bills pending in more than 40 states. They have received positive mention in the NY Times, LA Times and a bunch of other papers.
Congressional allocation of electoral votes is nothing more than a power play by a state’s minority party. The Republicans in California are trying to do it by initiative. The Democrats in North Carolina (a red presidential state) tried to do it through legislation. It is a partisan solution to a non-partisan problem.
The real solution is to move to a direct national popular vote for President. That system would eliminate the reality of “battleground” and “safe” states. Every voter would become a battleground as each candidate would be competing for each vote, not for a given state or congressional district. Under a national popular vote system, every vote would be equal. The candidate with the most votes would win.
A group called National Popular Vote (www.nationalpopularvote.com) is trying to implement just such a change. There are identical bills pending in more than 40 states. They have received positive mention in the NY Times, LA Times and a bunch of other papers.
This Republican scheme “Presidential Election Reform Act” (PERA) to dilute the Democratic Party presidential candidate’s ability to win all of California’s electoral votes while preserving the Republican Party’s ability to continue to use “winner take all” rules throughout the remainder of American is telling. It is inherently unfair.
The President should be elected by the same rules throughout America. The Electoral College in the 21st Century is outdated—it should be done away with. We should pick our President by direct national election.
This Republican scheme “Presidential Election Reform Act” (PERA) to dilute the Democratic Party presidential candidate’s ability to win all of California’s electoral votes while preserving the Republican Party’s ability to continue to use “winner take all” rules throughout the remainder of American is telling. It is inherently unfair.
The President should be elected by the same rules throughout America. The Electoral College in the 21st Century is outdated—it should be done away with. We should pick our President by direct national election.
This Republican scheme “Presidential Election Reform Act” (PERA) to dilute the Democratic Party presidential candidate’s ability to win all of California’s electoral votes while preserving the Republican Party’s ability to continue to use “winner take all” rules throughout the remainder of American is telling. It is inherently unfair.
The President should be elected by the same rules throughout America. The Electoral College in the 21st Century is outdated—it should be done away with. We should pick our President by direct national election.
This Republican scheme “Presidential Election Reform Act” (PERA) to dilute the Democratic Party presidential candidate’s ability to win all of California’s electoral votes while preserving the Republican Party’s ability to continue to use “winner take all” rules throughout the remainder of American is telling. It is inherently unfair.
The President should be elected by the same rules throughout America. The Electoral College in the 21st Century is outdated—it should be done away with. We should pick our President by direct national election.
In 1992, Wendell Williams from Walnut Creek lost to a sick Republican. He should have had it in the bag because the majority of residents for the district were Democrats. However, due to Republican inspired voting lines changed he lost. This was critical race for the country that year.
In 1992, Wendell Williams from Walnut Creek lost to a sick Republican. He should have had it in the bag because the majority of residents for the district were Democrats. However, due to Republican inspired voting lines changed he lost. This was critical race for the country that year.
In 1992, Wendell Williams from Walnut Creek lost to a sick Republican. He should have had it in the bag because the majority of residents for the district were Democrats. However, due to Republican inspired voting lines changed he lost. This was critical race for the country that year.
In 1992, Wendell Williams from Walnut Creek lost to a sick Republican. He should have had it in the bag because the majority of residents for the district were Democrats. However, due to Republican inspired voting lines changed he lost. This was critical race for the country that year.
Everyone should read this excellent article from the New Yorker on the subject at hand. It has some very good points for rebutting the proposition.
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/08/06/070806taco_talk_hertzberg
Everyone should read this excellent article from the New Yorker on the subject at hand. It has some very good points for rebutting the proposition.
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/08/06/070806taco_talk_hertzberg
Everyone should read this excellent article from the New Yorker on the subject at hand. It has some very good points for rebutting the proposition.
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/08/06/070806taco_talk_hertzberg
Everyone should read this excellent article from the New Yorker on the subject at hand. It has some very good points for rebutting the proposition.
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/08/06/070806taco_talk_hertzberg
The link doesn’t seem to be working, trying putting the two lines together in your address bar.
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/
08/06/070806taco_talk_hertzberg
The link doesn’t seem to be working, trying putting the two lines together in your address bar.
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/
08/06/070806taco_talk_hertzberg
The link doesn’t seem to be working, trying putting the two lines together in your address bar.
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/
08/06/070806taco_talk_hertzberg
The link doesn’t seem to be working, trying putting the two lines together in your address bar.
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/
08/06/070806taco_talk_hertzberg
This is a terrible proposition, but given recent levels of success for initiatives, I think it’s unlikely it will pass.
This is a terrible proposition, but given recent levels of success for initiatives, I think it’s unlikely it will pass.
This is a terrible proposition, but given recent levels of success for initiatives, I think it’s unlikely it will pass.
This is a terrible proposition, but given recent levels of success for initiatives, I think it’s unlikely it will pass.
The Electoral College reminds us of the importance of our federal system. Our country is named the “United States,” not the “United People.” We don’t live in a democracy, we live in a republic.
It would take a constitutional amendment ratified by 3/4 of states to change the system. It’s hard to imagine the smaller states agreeing to such an amendment. The electoral college was made to satisfy the small states and to satisfy checks and balances.
I would not want New York (New York City), California (Los Angeles), Illinois (Chicago) and Texas (Houston) to determine the US President. In a straight popular vote you can be assured that the candidate with the most money will address only the needs of those populated areas. You can also be assured that racial and social lines will make campaigns (and ultimately, the country) more divisive.
On the state level, it might be easier for California to modify its winner-take-all system. Changing it would certainly provide more “voice” to our water-rich Northern Californa.
The Electoral College reminds us of the importance of our federal system. Our country is named the “United States,” not the “United People.” We don’t live in a democracy, we live in a republic.
It would take a constitutional amendment ratified by 3/4 of states to change the system. It’s hard to imagine the smaller states agreeing to such an amendment. The electoral college was made to satisfy the small states and to satisfy checks and balances.
I would not want New York (New York City), California (Los Angeles), Illinois (Chicago) and Texas (Houston) to determine the US President. In a straight popular vote you can be assured that the candidate with the most money will address only the needs of those populated areas. You can also be assured that racial and social lines will make campaigns (and ultimately, the country) more divisive.
On the state level, it might be easier for California to modify its winner-take-all system. Changing it would certainly provide more “voice” to our water-rich Northern Californa.
The Electoral College reminds us of the importance of our federal system. Our country is named the “United States,” not the “United People.” We don’t live in a democracy, we live in a republic.
It would take a constitutional amendment ratified by 3/4 of states to change the system. It’s hard to imagine the smaller states agreeing to such an amendment. The electoral college was made to satisfy the small states and to satisfy checks and balances.
I would not want New York (New York City), California (Los Angeles), Illinois (Chicago) and Texas (Houston) to determine the US President. In a straight popular vote you can be assured that the candidate with the most money will address only the needs of those populated areas. You can also be assured that racial and social lines will make campaigns (and ultimately, the country) more divisive.
On the state level, it might be easier for California to modify its winner-take-all system. Changing it would certainly provide more “voice” to our water-rich Northern Californa.
The Electoral College reminds us of the importance of our federal system. Our country is named the “United States,” not the “United People.” We don’t live in a democracy, we live in a republic.
It would take a constitutional amendment ratified by 3/4 of states to change the system. It’s hard to imagine the smaller states agreeing to such an amendment. The electoral college was made to satisfy the small states and to satisfy checks and balances.
I would not want New York (New York City), California (Los Angeles), Illinois (Chicago) and Texas (Houston) to determine the US President. In a straight popular vote you can be assured that the candidate with the most money will address only the needs of those populated areas. You can also be assured that racial and social lines will make campaigns (and ultimately, the country) more divisive.
On the state level, it might be easier for California to modify its winner-take-all system. Changing it would certainly provide more “voice” to our water-rich Northern Californa.
The Electoral College violates the civil rights of each and every American in the United States. We are in this together and our votes must be equal for any government to derive its “just powers.” The Constitution begins “WE THE PEOPLE,” not We the States.
The Electoral College is an unconstitutional feature unconstitutionally inserted into the Constitution. So concluded Lucius Wilmerding of Princeton, the political scientist who coined the term “One voter–One vote” in his work The Electoral College written in 1958. And Andrew Jackson told Congress in 1828 that the Electoral College was never intended to reverse the vote of the American people.
The Electoral College violates the Declaration of Independence in many ways. It does not treat Americans as created equal, it converts their inalienable rights into mere privileges, and violates government with the consent of the governed (the greater truth goes with the greater number” DeTocqueville).
If the Declaration of Independence is binding then the Electoral College is unconstitutional. (1783 a slave named Quok Walker sues his slavemaster in Massachusetts arguing that the words “all men are created equal” made illegal the slavery then existing in that state). The Supreme Court of Massachusetts agrees with the slave and abolished slavery in Massachusetts.
The Declaration of Independence is explicitly recognized the Supreme law of the state of all Post Civil War States. See for example Congressional enabling act and the Constitution of the state of Nevada. http://www.nevadaobserver.com. The State of Nevada, for example, provided, “That the constitution, when formed, shall be republican, and not repugnant to the constitution of the United States, and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.” The supremacy of the Declaration of 1776 over the Slave Holder’s Constitution of 1787 was inserted into the Constitutions and enabling acts of all states of the Union admitted after the Gettysburg Address.
The Supreme Court of the United States said in 1964 that all votes in the same constituency must have the same weight. The court outlawed the electoral college of the state of Georgia which gave different weight according to county. Every vote must be equal regardless of the place it was cast said the Supreme Court. It is time to implement this ruling.
Yours truly
Gary Michael Coutin, Esquire
The Electoral College violates the civil rights of each and every American in the United States. We are in this together and our votes must be equal for any government to derive its “just powers.” The Constitution begins “WE THE PEOPLE,” not We the States.
The Electoral College is an unconstitutional feature unconstitutionally inserted into the Constitution. So concluded Lucius Wilmerding of Princeton, the political scientist who coined the term “One voter–One vote” in his work The Electoral College written in 1958. And Andrew Jackson told Congress in 1828 that the Electoral College was never intended to reverse the vote of the American people.
The Electoral College violates the Declaration of Independence in many ways. It does not treat Americans as created equal, it converts their inalienable rights into mere privileges, and violates government with the consent of the governed (the greater truth goes with the greater number” DeTocqueville).
If the Declaration of Independence is binding then the Electoral College is unconstitutional. (1783 a slave named Quok Walker sues his slavemaster in Massachusetts arguing that the words “all men are created equal” made illegal the slavery then existing in that state). The Supreme Court of Massachusetts agrees with the slave and abolished slavery in Massachusetts.
The Declaration of Independence is explicitly recognized the Supreme law of the state of all Post Civil War States. See for example Congressional enabling act and the Constitution of the state of Nevada. http://www.nevadaobserver.com. The State of Nevada, for example, provided, “That the constitution, when formed, shall be republican, and not repugnant to the constitution of the United States, and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.” The supremacy of the Declaration of 1776 over the Slave Holder’s Constitution of 1787 was inserted into the Constitutions and enabling acts of all states of the Union admitted after the Gettysburg Address.
The Supreme Court of the United States said in 1964 that all votes in the same constituency must have the same weight. The court outlawed the electoral college of the state of Georgia which gave different weight according to county. Every vote must be equal regardless of the place it was cast said the Supreme Court. It is time to implement this ruling.
Yours truly
Gary Michael Coutin, Esquire
The Electoral College violates the civil rights of each and every American in the United States. We are in this together and our votes must be equal for any government to derive its “just powers.” The Constitution begins “WE THE PEOPLE,” not We the States.
The Electoral College is an unconstitutional feature unconstitutionally inserted into the Constitution. So concluded Lucius Wilmerding of Princeton, the political scientist who coined the term “One voter–One vote” in his work The Electoral College written in 1958. And Andrew Jackson told Congress in 1828 that the Electoral College was never intended to reverse the vote of the American people.
The Electoral College violates the Declaration of Independence in many ways. It does not treat Americans as created equal, it converts their inalienable rights into mere privileges, and violates government with the consent of the governed (the greater truth goes with the greater number” DeTocqueville).
If the Declaration of Independence is binding then the Electoral College is unconstitutional. (1783 a slave named Quok Walker sues his slavemaster in Massachusetts arguing that the words “all men are created equal” made illegal the slavery then existing in that state). The Supreme Court of Massachusetts agrees with the slave and abolished slavery in Massachusetts.
The Declaration of Independence is explicitly recognized the Supreme law of the state of all Post Civil War States. See for example Congressional enabling act and the Constitution of the state of Nevada. http://www.nevadaobserver.com. The State of Nevada, for example, provided, “That the constitution, when formed, shall be republican, and not repugnant to the constitution of the United States, and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.” The supremacy of the Declaration of 1776 over the Slave Holder’s Constitution of 1787 was inserted into the Constitutions and enabling acts of all states of the Union admitted after the Gettysburg Address.
The Supreme Court of the United States said in 1964 that all votes in the same constituency must have the same weight. The court outlawed the electoral college of the state of Georgia which gave different weight according to county. Every vote must be equal regardless of the place it was cast said the Supreme Court. It is time to implement this ruling.
Yours truly
Gary Michael Coutin, Esquire
The Electoral College violates the civil rights of each and every American in the United States. We are in this together and our votes must be equal for any government to derive its “just powers.” The Constitution begins “WE THE PEOPLE,” not We the States.
The Electoral College is an unconstitutional feature unconstitutionally inserted into the Constitution. So concluded Lucius Wilmerding of Princeton, the political scientist who coined the term “One voter–One vote” in his work The Electoral College written in 1958. And Andrew Jackson told Congress in 1828 that the Electoral College was never intended to reverse the vote of the American people.
The Electoral College violates the Declaration of Independence in many ways. It does not treat Americans as created equal, it converts their inalienable rights into mere privileges, and violates government with the consent of the governed (the greater truth goes with the greater number” DeTocqueville).
If the Declaration of Independence is binding then the Electoral College is unconstitutional. (1783 a slave named Quok Walker sues his slavemaster in Massachusetts arguing that the words “all men are created equal” made illegal the slavery then existing in that state). The Supreme Court of Massachusetts agrees with the slave and abolished slavery in Massachusetts.
The Declaration of Independence is explicitly recognized the Supreme law of the state of all Post Civil War States. See for example Congressional enabling act and the Constitution of the state of Nevada. http://www.nevadaobserver.com. The State of Nevada, for example, provided, “That the constitution, when formed, shall be republican, and not repugnant to the constitution of the United States, and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.” The supremacy of the Declaration of 1776 over the Slave Holder’s Constitution of 1787 was inserted into the Constitutions and enabling acts of all states of the Union admitted after the Gettysburg Address.
The Supreme Court of the United States said in 1964 that all votes in the same constituency must have the same weight. The court outlawed the electoral college of the state of Georgia which gave different weight according to county. Every vote must be equal regardless of the place it was cast said the Supreme Court. It is time to implement this ruling.
Yours truly
Gary Michael Coutin, Esquire
The Electoral College violates the civil rights of each and every American in the United States. We are in this together and our votes must be equal for any government to derive its “just powers.” The Constitution begins “WE THE PEOPLE,” not We the States.
The Electoral College is an unconstitutional feature unconstitutionally inserted into the Constitution. So concluded Lucius Wilmerding of Princeton, the political scientist who coined the term “One voter–One vote” in his work The Electoral College written in 1958. And Andrew Jackson told Congress in 1828 that the Electoral College was never intended to reverse the vote of the American people.
The Electoral College violates the Declaration of Independence in many ways. It does not treat Americans as created equal, it converts their inalienable rights into mere privileges, and violates government with the consent of the governed (the greater truth goes with the greater number” DeTocqueville).
If the Declaration of Independence is binding then the Electoral College is unconstitutional. (1783 a slave named Quok Walker sues his slavemaster in Massachusetts arguing that the words “all men are created equal” made illegal the slavery then existing in that state). The Supreme Court of Massachusetts agrees with the slave and abolished slavery in Massachusetts.
The Declaration of Independence is explicitly recognized the Supreme law of the state of all Post Civil War States. See for example Congressional enabling act and the Constitution of the state of Nevada. http://www.nevadaobserver.com. The State of Nevada, for example, provided, “That the constitution, when formed, shall be republican, and not repugnant to the constitution of the United States, and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.” The supremacy of the Declaration of 1776 over the Slave Holder’s Constitution of 1787 was inserted into the Constitutions and enabling acts of all states of the Union admitted after the Gettysburg Address.
The Supreme Court of the United States said in 1964 that all votes in the same constituency must have the same weight. The court outlawed the electoral college of the state of Georgia which gave different weight according to county. Every vote must be equal regardless of the place it was cast said the Supreme Court. It is time to implement this ruling.
Yours truly
Gary Michael Coutin, Esquire
The Electoral College violates the civil rights of each and every American in the United States. We are in this together and our votes must be equal for any government to derive its “just powers.” The Constitution begins “WE THE PEOPLE,” not We the States.
The Electoral College is an unconstitutional feature unconstitutionally inserted into the Constitution. So concluded Lucius Wilmerding of Princeton, the political scientist who coined the term “One voter–One vote” in his work The Electoral College written in 1958. And Andrew Jackson told Congress in 1828 that the Electoral College was never intended to reverse the vote of the American people.
The Electoral College violates the Declaration of Independence in many ways. It does not treat Americans as created equal, it converts their inalienable rights into mere privileges, and violates government with the consent of the governed (the greater truth goes with the greater number” DeTocqueville).
If the Declaration of Independence is binding then the Electoral College is unconstitutional. (1783 a slave named Quok Walker sues his slavemaster in Massachusetts arguing that the words “all men are created equal” made illegal the slavery then existing in that state). The Supreme Court of Massachusetts agrees with the slave and abolished slavery in Massachusetts.
The Declaration of Independence is explicitly recognized the Supreme law of the state of all Post Civil War States. See for example Congressional enabling act and the Constitution of the state of Nevada. http://www.nevadaobserver.com. The State of Nevada, for example, provided, “That the constitution, when formed, shall be republican, and not repugnant to the constitution of the United States, and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.” The supremacy of the Declaration of 1776 over the Slave Holder’s Constitution of 1787 was inserted into the Constitutions and enabling acts of all states of the Union admitted after the Gettysburg Address.
The Supreme Court of the United States said in 1964 that all votes in the same constituency must have the same weight. The court outlawed the electoral college of the state of Georgia which gave different weight according to county. Every vote must be equal regardless of the place it was cast said the Supreme Court. It is time to implement this ruling.
Yours truly
Gary Michael Coutin, Esquire
The Electoral College violates the civil rights of each and every American in the United States. We are in this together and our votes must be equal for any government to derive its “just powers.” The Constitution begins “WE THE PEOPLE,” not We the States.
The Electoral College is an unconstitutional feature unconstitutionally inserted into the Constitution. So concluded Lucius Wilmerding of Princeton, the political scientist who coined the term “One voter–One vote” in his work The Electoral College written in 1958. And Andrew Jackson told Congress in 1828 that the Electoral College was never intended to reverse the vote of the American people.
The Electoral College violates the Declaration of Independence in many ways. It does not treat Americans as created equal, it converts their inalienable rights into mere privileges, and violates government with the consent of the governed (the greater truth goes with the greater number” DeTocqueville).
If the Declaration of Independence is binding then the Electoral College is unconstitutional. (1783 a slave named Quok Walker sues his slavemaster in Massachusetts arguing that the words “all men are created equal” made illegal the slavery then existing in that state). The Supreme Court of Massachusetts agrees with the slave and abolished slavery in Massachusetts.
The Declaration of Independence is explicitly recognized the Supreme law of the state of all Post Civil War States. See for example Congressional enabling act and the Constitution of the state of Nevada. http://www.nevadaobserver.com. The State of Nevada, for example, provided, “That the constitution, when formed, shall be republican, and not repugnant to the constitution of the United States, and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.” The supremacy of the Declaration of 1776 over the Slave Holder’s Constitution of 1787 was inserted into the Constitutions and enabling acts of all states of the Union admitted after the Gettysburg Address.
The Supreme Court of the United States said in 1964 that all votes in the same constituency must have the same weight. The court outlawed the electoral college of the state of Georgia which gave different weight according to county. Every vote must be equal regardless of the place it was cast said the Supreme Court. It is time to implement this ruling.
Yours truly
Gary Michael Coutin, Esquire
The Electoral College violates the civil rights of each and every American in the United States. We are in this together and our votes must be equal for any government to derive its “just powers.” The Constitution begins “WE THE PEOPLE,” not We the States.
The Electoral College is an unconstitutional feature unconstitutionally inserted into the Constitution. So concluded Lucius Wilmerding of Princeton, the political scientist who coined the term “One voter–One vote” in his work The Electoral College written in 1958. And Andrew Jackson told Congress in 1828 that the Electoral College was never intended to reverse the vote of the American people.
The Electoral College violates the Declaration of Independence in many ways. It does not treat Americans as created equal, it converts their inalienable rights into mere privileges, and violates government with the consent of the governed (the greater truth goes with the greater number” DeTocqueville).
If the Declaration of Independence is binding then the Electoral College is unconstitutional. (1783 a slave named Quok Walker sues his slavemaster in Massachusetts arguing that the words “all men are created equal” made illegal the slavery then existing in that state). The Supreme Court of Massachusetts agrees with the slave and abolished slavery in Massachusetts.
The Declaration of Independence is explicitly recognized the Supreme law of the state of all Post Civil War States. See for example Congressional enabling act and the Constitution of the state of Nevada. http://www.nevadaobserver.com. The State of Nevada, for example, provided, “That the constitution, when formed, shall be republican, and not repugnant to the constitution of the United States, and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.” The supremacy of the Declaration of 1776 over the Slave Holder’s Constitution of 1787 was inserted into the Constitutions and enabling acts of all states of the Union admitted after the Gettysburg Address.
The Supreme Court of the United States said in 1964 that all votes in the same constituency must have the same weight. The court outlawed the electoral college of the state of Georgia which gave different weight according to county. Every vote must be equal regardless of the place it was cast said the Supreme Court. It is time to implement this ruling.
Yours truly
Gary Michael Coutin, Esquire
The Constitution of the United States starts off “We the people of the United States.”
Your whole argument is based on a bad premise followed by nonsense.
Oh, I take that back, Lucius Wilmerding was elected as our Supreme Ruler and what he says, goes.
The Constitution of the United States starts off “We the people of the United States.”
Your whole argument is based on a bad premise followed by nonsense.
Oh, I take that back, Lucius Wilmerding was elected as our Supreme Ruler and what he says, goes.
The Constitution of the United States starts off “We the people of the United States.”
Your whole argument is based on a bad premise followed by nonsense.
Oh, I take that back, Lucius Wilmerding was elected as our Supreme Ruler and what he says, goes.
The Constitution of the United States starts off “We the people of the United States.”
Your whole argument is based on a bad premise followed by nonsense.
Oh, I take that back, Lucius Wilmerding was elected as our Supreme Ruler and what he says, goes.