Progressive Activists Look to Courts to Undermine the Electoral College

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
A new lawsuit, spearheaded by Harvard University law professor Lawrence Lessig and filed in four states, charges that the “winner-take-all” element of how states divvy up their Electoral College votes is unconstitutional.

The District of Columbia and 48 states use this winner-take-all system.

The only exceptions are Maine and Nebraska, which use a proportional allocation of votes.

“Under the winner-take-all system, U.S. citizens have been denied their constitutional right to an equal vote in presidential elections,” said David Boies, an attorney who represented former Vice President Al Gore in the contested 2000 election and is leading the current litigation against the Electoral College. “This is a clear violation of the principle of one person, one vote.”

A number of similar lawsuits have been filed in the past, but all have failed.

According to Ballot Access News, the biggest impediment to overturning the winner-take-all system is Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, 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.”


Progressive Activists Look to Courts to Undermine the Electoral College
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I'm guessing they haven't looked at an electoral map lately. If states move away from the winner-take-all method and apportion electoral votes by disctrict, there will never be another Democrat President again.

And if they're looking to abolish the electoral college entirely they're going to have a massive fight on their hands. Literally.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
So what I'm not getting is the connection between winner take all and the Constitutional aspect. I get that the Fed cannot, and shold not, tell the states they must do away with winner take all, but I also dont see that moving away from winner take all means you are destroying the elctoral college itself or weakening it's benefits. I view winner take all as akin to gerrymandering, an add-on put in by Big Party politics to ensure two parties remain the norm. Where am I going wrong?
 

transporter

Well-Known Member
A new lawsuit, spearheaded by Harvard University law professor Lawrence Lessig and filed in four states, charges that the “winner-take-all” element of how states divvy up their Electoral College votes is unconstitutional.

The District of Columbia and 48 states use this winner-take-all system.

The only exceptions are Maine and Nebraska, which use a proportional allocation of votes.

“Under the winner-take-all system, U.S. citizens have been denied their constitutional right to an equal vote in presidential elections,” said David Boies, an attorney who represented former Vice President Al Gore in the contested 2000 election and is leading the current litigation against the Electoral College. “This is a clear violation of the principle of one person, one vote.”

A number of similar lawsuits have been filed in the past, but all have failed.

According to Ballot Access News, the biggest impediment to overturning the winner-take-all system is Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, 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.”


Progressive Activists Look to Courts to Undermine the Electoral College

You know there is actual news going on? You know this country faces actual problems that call for real solutions?

Yet, you post this garbage as if it is news?

This will be the 4th reply...what'd you make 20 cents? Good for you!
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
You know there is actual news going on? You know this country faces actual problems that call for real solutions?

Yet, you post this garbage as if it is news?

This will be the 4th reply...what'd you make 20 cents? Good for you!

If you're not interested in the topic why don't you butt your bitch ass out?
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I have never liked the winner take all solution.

Living in Md. it mostly means I waste my time voting since the state will go Democrat.

Exactly. It means everyone in the state is held hostage by the big city population centers (otherwise known as "#### hold ghettos"), which is hardly equal representation for rural and suburban communities.
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
You know there is actual news going on? You know this country faces actual problems that call for real solutions?

Yet, you post this garbage as if it is news?

This will be the 4th reply...what'd you make 20 cents? Good for you!

So your bitch is we're talking about the wrong news? Who elected you to be the decider what is and isn't relevant news.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
If you're not interested in the topic why don't you butt your bitch ass out?

I think trans largely just stalks YOU. Always with SOME comment even if the thread has nothing to do with politics, but one you have commented on.

But I didn't miss the obvious - making an irrelevant non-comment on a thread by chastising others that there's other stuff to talk about.

Must be lonely.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
“Under the winner-take-all system, U.S. citizens have been denied their constitutional right to an equal vote in presidential elections,” said David Boies, an attorney who represented former Vice President Al Gore in the contested 2000 election and is leading the current litigation against the Electoral College. “This is a clear violation of the principle of one person, one vote.”

Does anyone have any idea where this person is getting a constitutional right to an equal vote in presidential elections, or a principle of one person, one vote as it relates to presidential elections? I thought attorneys were supposed to understand the constitution.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Generally .... how many decisions from the 9th Circuit have been over turned because the liberal judges in that court went off the Rails

Speaking of a court off the rails how about that bunch that ruled that the Peace Cross has to come down?
 

awpitt

Main Streeter
A new lawsuit, spearheaded by Harvard University law professor Lawrence Lessig and filed in four states, charges that the “winner-take-all” element of how states divvy up their Electoral College votes is unconstitutional.

The District of Columbia and 48 states use this winner-take-all system.

The only exceptions are Maine and Nebraska, which use a proportional allocation of votes.

“Under the winner-take-all system, U.S. citizens have been denied their constitutional right to an equal vote in presidential elections,” said David Boies, an attorney who represented former Vice President Al Gore in the contested 2000 election and is leading the current litigation against the Electoral College. “This is a clear violation of the principle of one person, one vote.”

A number of similar lawsuits have been filed in the past, but all have failed.

According to Ballot Access News, the biggest impediment to overturning the winner-take-all system is Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, 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.”


Progressive Activists Look to Courts to Undermine the Electoral College

While I feel that we'd all be better served by all states following the example of ME and NE. I don't think these folks have a leg to stand on from a Constitutional standpoint.
 
Top