tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4040888058344596895.post1578938887346830390..comments2023-04-14T05:57:07.029-07:00Comments on North Carolina Elections - Protecting The Vote: Professor Doug Jones on National Popular Vote - two possible outcomesJoyce McCloyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05639953244478293701noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4040888058344596895.post-7156231726334481842010-07-13T17:19:31.138-07:002010-07-13T17:19:31.138-07:00The U.S. Constitution does not require that the el...The U.S. Constitution does not require that the election laws of all 50 states are identical in virtually every respect. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment only restricts a given state in the manner it treats persons "within its jurisdiction." The Equal Protection Clause imposes no obligation on a given state concerning a "person" in another state who is not "within its [the first state's] jurisdiction." State election laws are not identical now nor is there anything in the National Popular Vote compact that would force them to become identical. Indeed, the U.S. Constitution specifically permits diversity of election laws among the states because it explicitly gives the states control over the conduct of presidential elections (article II) as well as congressional elections (article I). The fact is that the Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution permits states to conduct elections in varied ways.totohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12247335901450384827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4040888058344596895.post-12204434501503691782010-07-13T17:18:22.118-07:002010-07-13T17:18:22.118-07:00The Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constit...The Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (only after debating among 60 ballots for choosing a method): "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." 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 />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 rule) 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.<br /><br />In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all rule to award electoral votes.<br /><br />There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is 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 rule (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 rule. <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 rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.totohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12247335901450384827noreply@blogger.com