Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, November 10, 2017

Election law professor Edward B. Foley: Donald Trump amassed 101 Electoral College votes in states where he failed to win 50% of the popular vote. In each of these states, more voters voted for other candidates than for Trump, yet he received all the Electoral College votes. ... Despite everything said about the 2016 election, insufficient attention has been paid to this basic fact. It means that while Trump technically achieved an Electoral College victory, he did so without genuinely receiving the support of the electorates in the states responsible for his Electoral College win. That is the opposite of what the architects of the Electoral College had in mind.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The Electoral College's architects understood that an election with multiple candidates might produce a winner with under 50% of the votes, an outcome they wanted to avoid. That's why they insisted that to win a candidate must receive a majority, and not merely a plurality, of Electoral College votes. ...

States can return to the original plan by adopting the same kind of runoff that New Hampshire had or, instead, a modern form of runoff that avoids the need for a second round of ballots. Known as instant-runoff voting, it enables voters to rank their preferences among multiple candidates. Had this been used last year, a voter could have ranked Stein first, Clinton second, and Johnson third (for example). These rankings make it possible to eliminate candidates with less support than others and then identify which remaining candidate is preferred by a majority of voters.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

There are a lot of great solutions to our election system problems.

None of them will happen because very rich very evil people are benefiting from the status quo.

#1 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-10 01:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

This is an idea that was first floated when Clinton beat Bush in '92 and was roundly rejected by both the Democrats and the GOP.

I think it has merit but agree with Speak that the Special Interests and the career politicians have no interest in changing anything.

#2 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-10 01:58 PM | Reply

It would be very difficult for many Republican voters who tend to be older. They already have issues with ballots. This would be a bit more complicated of a ballot.

#3 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-10 02:05 PM | Reply

I've been a fan of instant-runoff voting for a long time. I would vastly prefer this to any system that just has the winner be the one who gets a plurality of votes.

#4 | Posted by LEgregius at 2017-11-10 02:12 PM | Reply

This only fixes part of a broken system. The fact remains that votes in some states have far more "weight" then votes cast in other states. That is not a case of "all men are created equally" at least their votes are not. The Electoral College was again one of those "compromises" for the southern slave states. The fact we have gone to winner takes all is another part of the problem.

Safe to say I think we have evolved beyond the Electoral College and need a popular vote solution. The National Popular Vote interstate compact solves it all if it ever gets adopted by enough states.

States with 145 Electors have it as law already. States with 96 Electors have passed it in one or both chambers - but it has not made into law. If those states make it law, then there is only the need for a state or states with 29 or more electors to sign on.

But Speak is correct I am afraid so I am skeptical it will ever get enough votes.

#5 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-11-10 02:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Cry me a river. Run a better candidate next time.

#6 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-10 02:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#5

No small state is going to agree to the NPV, if they did then the big states on the coasts would control the process.

From the smaller states perspective, the EC ensures that they are paid attention to on the national stage, and they are not incorrect.

#7 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-10 02:58 PM | Reply

It's better to reduce the power of government so that it doesn't matter so much who wins.

#8 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-11-10 03:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Cry me a river. Run a better candidate next time.

#6 | Posted by LauraMohr

That better candidate would have a better chance of winning in a more fair election system. Hating hillary doesn't mean you have to defend a broken system does it?

#9 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-10 03:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

It's better to reduce the power of government so that it doesn't matter so much who wins.

#8 | Posted by visitor_

This message has been brought to you by exxon, the koch brothers, wall street and every other rich sociopath in the country.

#10 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-10 03:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Advertisement

Advertisement

@LAURAMOHR - You go girl! I couldn't agree more.

#11 | Posted by hoser at 2017-11-10 03:17 PM | Reply

Long live the electoral college, the only thing preventing a dictatorship by California, New York, and a handful of deep-blue coastal states.

#12 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-10 03:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#12 That! Liberal repellent.

#13 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2017-11-10 03:29 PM | Reply

Government serves the powerful. Why would you help your oppressors forge better chains?

#14 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-11-10 03:33 PM | Reply

Long live the electoral college, the only thing preventing a dictatorship by California, New York, and a handful of deep-blue coastal states.

#12 | Posted by AndreaMackris

YOu mean the only thing allowing outnumbered morons to control the fate of the country.

#15 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-10 03:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Government serves the powerful. Why would you help your oppressors forge better chains?

#14 | Posted by visitor_

Because that's fixable if we fix election funding.

Government is a tool. Like a gun. In the wrong hands it causes harm, in the right hands, it is the only thing protecting you from harm.

That's why the plutocrats work so hard to brainwash you into hating government. It's the only entity that can put any limits on their destruction and greed.

#16 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-10 03:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

All I'm hearing is WAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#17 | Posted by hoser at 2017-11-10 03:35 PM | Reply

www.google.com

How about the states make it fair like Nebraska and Maine

#18 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-11-10 03:52 PM | Reply

That better candidate would have a better chance of winning in a more fair election system. Hating hillary doesn't mean you have to defend a broken system does it?

#9 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-10 03:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

That "broken" system worked for Obama. What's your excuse for Hillary losing.

#19 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-10 04:51 PM | Reply

#7 | Posted by Rightocenter

There you are wrong. Many small states have ALREADY either voted it into law or are considering it. Not to mention the Assertion NY and CA will control it - I mean isn't Texas a counter weight? Besides it's not like anywhere near the vote is 100% for a democrat in those states. National Popular Vote

#20 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-11-10 05:09 PM | Reply

Long live the electoral college, the only thing preventing a dictatorship by California, New York, and a handful of deep-blue coastal states.

#12 | Posted by AndreaMackris

You mean the states where most people live?

What an awful concept, a government of the people, by the people and for the people actually representing the views of the people instead of this grotesque charade we have now.

#21 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-10 05:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

It's better to reduce the power of government so that it doesn't matter so much who wins.

#8 | POSTED BY VISITOR_ AT 2017-11-10 03:05 PM |

Thats like saying its better to reduce the height of the fence around the chicken coop so that it doesn't matter whether its wood or steel.

Government is not a bad thing. Government regulation is the only thing that protects us from the corporate wolves.

#22 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-11-10 05:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Long live the electoral college, the only thing preventing a dictatorship by California, New York, and a handful of deep-blue coastal states.

#12 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS AT 2017-11-10 03:19 PM

Long live the electoral college, the only thing creating a dictatorship by Wyoming, Utah, and a handful of unpopulated flyover states

#23 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-11-10 05:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#18 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain

That is more in line with the intent of the original constitution but still something that can be manipulated. Just look at Michigan's current districting.

#24 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-11-10 05:27 PM | Reply

That "broken" system worked for Obama. What's your excuse for Hillary losing.

#19 | Posted by LauraMohr

The electoral college isn't an excuse. It's a fact.

The electoral college brought us dubya, which brought us iraq, hundreds of thousands of deaths, 5 trillion in debt, and a mideast on fire. Yet we learned nothing

So then the electoral college brought us trump, who is doing his best to destroy the environment, and will likely make dubya look like FDR in comparison.

There is no reason that your mailing address should have anything to do with the amount of say you get over who becomes president.

#25 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-10 05:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The electoral college isn't an excuse. It's a fact.

A great fact that shows the wisdom of the founders for constructing barriers to the tyranny of the majority.

#26 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-10 05:58 PM | Reply

Government regulation is the only thing that protects the corporate wolves from us. There I fixed it.

#27 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-11-10 06:02 PM | Reply

A great fact that shows the wisdom of the founders for constructing barriers to the tyranny of the majority.

#26 | Posted by AndreaMackris

How it tryanny of the minority any better?

The fact is, youre fine with the deck being stacked because it's stacked in your favor.

There is no reason people's power to pick the president should depend on their mailing address, and the only argument you have for that system is "Well I don't care about fairness because fairness would mean my minority viewpoint wouldn't be represented as much."

#28 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-10 06:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

How it tryanny of the minority any better?

Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-10 06:05 PM | Reply

You've wound up in JeffJ Land. There's no such thing as tyranny of the minority. That's an intellectual fallacy.

#29 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-10 06:14 PM | Reply

How it tryanny of the minority any better?
Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-10 06:05 PM | Reply
You've wound up in JeffJ Land. There's no such thing as tyranny of the minority. That's an intellectual fallacy.
#29 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Of course there is. Its when thee minority is in charge. Literally the whole point of a democracy to was to fight off tyranny of the minority.

#30 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-10 06:19 PM | Reply

Of course there is. Its when thee minority is in charge. Literally the whole point of a democracy to was to fight off tyranny of the minority.

Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-10 06:19 PM | Reply

We aren't a true democracy but a constitutional republic.

OOPSIE DAISY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#31 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-10 06:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Of course there is. Its when thee minority is in charge. Literally the whole point of a democracy to was to fight off tyranny of the minority.
Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-10 06:19 PM | Reply
We aren't a true democracy but a constitutional republic.
OOPSIE DAISY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#31 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

You say that like it somehow changes the point...

In addition, a Constitutional Republic is a type of Democracy. You are confusing the term Democracy with "True Democracy" in which there are no rules other than what the voters decide. A Constitutional Republic is a Representative Democracy with a Constitution.

Now back to what actually mattered... You're wrong. There is such a thing as Tyranny of the Minority. Oligarchies, Feudalism, etc.

#32 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-10 06:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I don't see a need for the EC for Presidency. There's only one. Citizens would still have equal representation in Congress. What would be funny is if you make the Vice President the person with the second most votes. Could you imagine Hillary Clinton as President with Donald Trump as VP?

#33 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-10 06:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

You're wrong. There is such a thing as Tyranny of the Minority.
#32 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

How so? Describe how a minority in a Democracy is tyrannical?

Citizens would still have equal representation in Congress. - Gavaster

This is incorrect, not citizens, but people.

The fact is, youre fine with the deck being stacked because it's stacked in your favor.

What deck? What is in "my" favor?

#34 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-10 07:07 PM | Reply

You've wound up in JeffJ Land. There's no such thing as tyranny of the minority. That's an intellectual fallacy.

#29 | Posted by LauraMohr

And so it democracy, when outnumbered dirt farming theocrats get to set policy for the rest of the country.

#35 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-10 07:10 PM | Reply

Now, a presidential candidate could lose despite winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 states.

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation's votes!

#36 | Posted by mvymvy at 2017-11-10 08:00 PM | Reply

Being a constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country.

Guaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes (as the National Popular Vote bill would) would not make us a pure democracy.

Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.

Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state's electoral votes

The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency in 2020 to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Every voter, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.

#37 | Posted by mvymvy at 2017-11-10 08:02 PM | Reply

The political reality is that the 11 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included 7 states have voted Republican(Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 4 states have voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

With National Popular Vote, it's not the size of any given state, it's the size of their "margin" that will matter.

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of "wasted" popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective,
Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).
Utah (5 electoral votes) generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.
8 small western states, with less than a third of California's population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

#38 | Posted by mvymvy at 2017-11-10 08:05 PM | Reply

Maine (since enacting a state law in 1969) and Nebraska (since enacting a state law in 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.

77% of Maine voters and 74% of Nebraska voters support a national popular vote.

Nebraska in 2008 was the first time any state in the past century gave one electoral vote to the candidate who did not win the state.

2016 is the first time an electoral vote in Maine was given to the candidate who did not win the state.

In Maine, where they award electoral votes by congressional district, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine's 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored).
In 2012, the whole state was ignored.
77% of Maine voters have supported a national popular vote for President
In 2008, the Maine Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill

Republican leaders in Maine proposed and passed a constitutional amendment that, if passed at referendum, would require a 2/3rds vote in all future redistricting decisions. Then they changed their minds and wanted to pass a majority-only plan to make redistricting in their favor even easier.

In Nebraska, which also uses the district method, the 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska's reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) 2/3rds of the state were irrelevant.
In 2012, the whole state was ignored.
74% of Nebraska voters have supported a national popular vote for President

After Obama won 1 congressional district in Nebraska in 2008,Nebraska Republicans moved that district to make it more Republican to avoid another GOP loss there, and the leadership committee of the Nebraska Republican Party promptly adopted a resolution requiring all GOP elected officials to favor overturning their district method for awarding electoral votes or lose the party's support.
A GOP push to return Nebraska to a winner-take-all system of awarding its electoral college votes for president only barely failed in March 2015 and April 2016.

The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC becomes President.

#39 | Posted by mvymvy at 2017-11-10 08:07 PM | Reply

Trump, October 12, 2016 in Sean Hannity interview
"I would rather have a popular vote. "

Trump, November 13, 2016, on "60 Minutes"
" I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There's a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play."

In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.
"The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."

In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin.

Recent and past presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969), and Hillary Clinton (D-NY-2001).

Recent and past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN),

#40 | Posted by mvymvy at 2017-11-10 08:09 PM | Reply

With National Popular Vote, when every popular vote counts and matters to the candidates equally, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. Elections wouldn't be about winning a handful of battleground states.

Fourteen of the 15 smallest states by population are ignored like the big ones because they're not swing states. Small states are safe states. Only New Hampshire gets significant attention.

Support for a national popular vote has been strong in every smallest state surveyed in polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 70-80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states' votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.

State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided "battleground" states.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections.

Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.

Voters in states, of all sizes, that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

#41 | Posted by mvymvy at 2017-11-10 08:11 PM | Reply

The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia, Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California, Colorado (9), Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico (5), New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (19), New Jersey (14), Maryland (11), California (55), Massachusetts (10), New York (29), Vermont (3), Rhode Island (4), and Washington (13). These 11 jurisdictions have 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

It changes state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), to guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes, without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

#42 | Posted by mvymvy at 2017-11-10 08:13 PM | Reply

#36-42

Cork 'n Paste is going to be sooo jealous of your spamming skilz

#43 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-10 08:15 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

The author is suggesting a practical solution to one real problem which undermines equality under the law. The Founding Fathers thought each state would take care to assure that a candidate could not receive its Electoral College votes without support from a majority of its voters. States initially complied with this expectation. Later, states moved to letting presidential candidates get all of a state's Electoral College votes with only a plurality of popular votes.

This requires fixing the state laws that implement the Electoral College system. The good news is that each state already has the constitutional power to repair its own laws, without the need for three-quarters of the states agreeing to a constitutional amendment or some sort of multi-state compact that would not take effect until enough states sign on.

Whether this problem is larger than Republican vote purging is debatable. But it would be an important step in the right direction.

#44 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-11 10:27 AM | Reply

In 1789, in the nation's first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, 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.

In the nation's first presidential election in 1789 and second election in 1792, the states employed a wide variety of methods for choosing presidential electors, including
● appointment of the state's presidential electors by the Governor and his Council,
● appointment by both houses of the state legislature,
● popular election using special single-member presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using counties as presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using congressional districts,
● popular election using multi-member regional districts,
● combinations of popular election and legislative choice,
● appointment of the state's presidential electors by the Governor and his Council combined with the state legislature, and
● statewide popular election.

#45 | Posted by mvymvy at 2017-11-11 07:34 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort