This election has proven how destructive it is to leave a job as important as selecting the President in the hands of the American public.
In the Constitution, the method for electing the President bears only a limited resemblance to the system which we use today. The basic description of the process is in Article 2, Section 1, which says:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The specifics are further clarified in the 12th Amendment, but this basic procedure of selecting electors who then select the president remains in power. The key element of it is that the state legislatures determine how the electors are to be chosen.…
Article comments
26 - troll
Dave - re #9: [who is a voter and how voters are selected in each state] and [whether the electors are bound to follow the popular vote] and [laws passed related to such] can be bracketed as interesting and related but separate issues so that we can examine the one variable - the process of elector selection
you say: ...by 1824 about half the states had some form of popular election for the presidency.
but of the 24 states that took part in the '24 election all but 6: Delaware; Georgia; Louisiana; New York; South Carolina; and Vermont based the selection of electors on some form of 'popular' vote
in '20 all but 9 of 24
in '16 all but 9 of 19
in '12 all but 9 of 18
in '08 - 7 of 17
in '04 - 6 of 17
in 1800 - 10 of 16
in '96 - 7 of 16
in '92 - 9 of 15
in '89 - 4 of 10
the explicit experiment with 'popular elections of the president' through 'popular' selection of electors began with 6 states in that first election...and if it is to be considered a failure the failure is in the original concept and cannot be laid at the door of the Jacksonian Democrats
27 - troll
(got my '89 data incorrect...in 6 of the 10 participating states electors were chosen by their legislatures - thus the 'experiment' began on the other 4 states)
28 - troll
...perhaps instead of turning elector selection over to state legislatures we could have indÃgenas pick 'em
29 - Dave Nalle
Troll, my data Troll, my data from the University of Chicago constitutional history archives disagress with you. It has:
9 of 15 in 92
9 of 16 in 96
10 of 16 in 00
After that this source is unclear, except for 1824 where it says 6 states used their legislatures to pick electors and then after 1832 only SC did it on a regular basis.
But still, relatively close.
The point being that at the start a lot of states worked the election on this basis, and that for the next century the occasional state would fall back on it when they had problems with the popular election. So there's no question that having no popular vote is legitimate.
I'm not trying to blame the Democrats here, I'm just making the point that the trend towards having an actual popular election is based on later state laws, not the constitution, and could be reversed without the difficulty of passing a constitutional amendment.
Dave
30 - moon
Cannon:
If you think they would weasle compensation for themselves, just exclude lawyers from public office (except for judges, I suppose).
They are mostly scum anyway.
31 - RJ Elliott
Dave:
Let me know what you think about this (from Neal Boortz):
First on my list is an amendment to repeal an amendment.
The 17th Amendment, to be more specific. I believe the argument can be made that the 17th Amendment has done more to promote the growth of federal government than any other action in our country's history. The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, provided for the popular election of U.S. Senators. Our original Constitution created a system whereby the people of the United States were represented in Washington by the members of the House of Representatives, while the state governments were represented by Senators. Each state legislature would appoint two people to serve staggered terms in the Senate. The people had their voice in Washington, and so did the States. Tell me, do you think that the federal government would have successfully usurped so many powers from State governments? Would the U.S. Congress have placed so many unfunded mandates on the backs of the states? Our founding fathers (the politically correct term is now "framers") felt that in times of peace 90% of all government should emanate from state and local levels, and only 5% from the federal level. The growth of the federal sector at the expense of local power can be traced back to the ratification of the 17th Amendment. Repeal it. Return the power to the local governments.
I'd never heard this argument prior to listening to Mr. Boortz mention this idea a couple years ago. I find it fascinating, although I'm not sure I support it.
What say you?
32 - Mark Schannon
RJ, see earlier comments about the ability, quality, and integrity of state legislatures. This ain't the 17 & 1800s where they were part time orgs run by the state aristocracy. Now any schmoe can become a state representative--perhaps or perhaps not an improvement on the previous method--but they're all almost full-time with significant salaries.
Trust ye no in the wisdom of state elected officials. They be knaves & scoundrels...and stupid as rocks to boot.
Dave, ...this one area we can improve things a bit by going back to the basics. It's at least a place to start... Aye, there's the rub. What basics? And of those basics, what are anachronistic and need fixing?
Maybe the answer is to reduce the value of buying off legislators, and a way to do that would be to reduce their power. Limit government and its influence on business and you limit the market value of a legislator's vote.
Hello! Dave. Boobulla. You been watching the markets lately? As a diseased former member of the upper crust, we're seeing our fortunes turned into plow shares. There are, I admit, government regulations that are just the other side of insane, but let's not throw the baby out with the Perrier. Even Green-"Oy, What a Mistake"-Span admits his view of the Reagan/Clinton/Bush economic world was slightly...WRONG! Sorry for yelling.
Limit government? O.k., but limit its almost infinite incompetence & inability to enact meaningful changes that help people. Giving free reign to business is like giving me free reign in the Middleton factory (the makers of that fine and noble Jameson.)
This ain't the forum to go into specifics, but at least we share frustrations with the sorry state of America today.
And Moon, my dear, make elected positions unpaid and what few non zillionaires are in office will have to find legitimate work. That was a good idea back in the good old days when only landed men could work, but it won't work today.
Even if limited terms, what teacher or laborer or Lithuanian secret service agent could take 2 or 6 years off without pay?
In Jameson Veritas
33 - Dr Dreadful
Now any schmoe can become a state representative--perhaps or perhaps not an improvement on the previous method--but they're all almost full-time with significant salaries.
I don't know about that, Mark. Modern state legislatures run the whole gamut from those which are continually engaged and deadlocked in a mortal struggle to approve the 1927 state budget, as in California, to those which briefly toy with the idea of meeting up every couple of years before thinking better of it and going to the golf course instead, as in Texas and Oregon.
It's one of the aspects of the federal system which I find most fascinating and vibrant.
34 - Dave Nalle
RJ, the Boortz suggestion you bring up would go hand in hand with what I'm saying in this article. The original intent was for the Senate to be a bit like the British House of Lords, but not too much like it, representing the interests of the ruling elite rather than of the common people, while the House was more like the Commons.
It makes sense to me.
Dave
35 - Mark Schannon
I can't talk to you, Dr. D. You're dead, or at least claimed to be on that foodie posting, and I don't talk to dead people. At least not on purpose.
I hope you recover soon because what you find fascinating & vibrant I consider dismal & dull. But that's what makes horses run around oval tracks.
36 - Dr Dreadful
Mark, what's wrong with being dead? It never stopped Dracula.
37 - Mark Schannon
Dr. D.
It's a religious thing.
38 - Lisa Solod Warren
Mark
If Dr D has been dead someone has been doing a lot of work under his name.
Perhaps you had better lay off the Jameson's.
Off to bed, believe it or not, as I am up at 4 a.m. to be at the polls to work ALL DAY.....
(I can't imagine why I said I would do this)
39 - Mark Schannon
Lisa, don't blame me. Just go to tastes, the article on some italian dish & see what he wrote. he's the one who faked his death. I was just showing appropriate sympathy & humanity.
Get a good night's sleep. It's all...I hope...in the bag...of money being spread around by Obamaniacs in search of an honest poll worker.
And one can never drink too much Jameson. Shame on thee, lass.
In Jameson Veritas
40 - Dr Dreadful
I had to pretend to be dead so that I could register to vote.
41 - Cindy D
Dr.D,
LOLOLOL! Thanks for making me laugh.
I needed that after reading about "Toot".
42 - Mark Schannon
Dr. D. Didn't know you lived in Chicago...good move, the playing dead thing.
However, you could have least sent me a secret decoder ring e-m letting me know so I wasn't bemoaning your loss all over BC.
In Jameson Veritas