Well, yes, but the Constitution seems to contradict this one (or at least the parts that I bolded).
True, it does contradict it, but that doesn't mean that what Hamilton describes isn't what the expected approach would be.
I think that's being too generous. The argument he made clearly indicates a direct involvement of the people, something, as noted, not found anywhere in the Constitution. If F68 was intended to gain the support of the people based on the idea that said constitution woudl mandate that they have a say in elelcting th ePresident, he was misleading (at best).
I don't disagree with you there. Misleading at best, lying at worst.
Well, OK, but I still dont see how this supports your 'the state ARE uneuqal' argument. All it really does is describe the process and imply that the people would participate.
The states are unequal argument is mainly based on the fact that they don't have equal EC votes. If they were meant to have an equal say, they would have equal votes.
I think that some degree of representation, even if not direct, was definitely and clearly a determinant factor for the way that the number of EC votes were decided.
However true that may be, the fact is they gave the legislatures plenary power to do so -- and thru the 1800s, many states legislatures took it upon themselves to do so.
True. I disagree with them having done that. :mrgreen:
Which makes me wonder why that was not specified by the Constitution.
Perhaps, as noted above, this was just lip service, indicating that there was no intention to involve the people, but the need for popular support to ratify the constituion, such an involvement had to be stated.
I think there might be truth to that.
The Constitution is not set up for it to work that way. I -love- to tell people that their state could decide to not hold an election and seat their electors based on a game of poker -- or just seat the guy from (the other party) outright.
Yeah, I've seen you do it. (Hell, in that first conversation we had on this you DID do that to me. :lol
I realize that this is true and that's why in one of my earlier posts (I think it was my first or second one in this thread) I said that I don't care if a some state I don't live in decides to use the groundhog seeing it's shadow or not as the determining factor for choosing where their EC votes go. Technically, they can do that.
My personal compromise with my distaste for the EC is that I only concern myself with Illinois' votes.
I just don't want those votes to suddenly become a single vote, thus negating my ability to change Illinois!
If that one state = one vote thing actually happened, I'd be forced to argue for the abolishment of the EC altogether, which means I'd have to be in favor of an amendment. Which means I would have to argue, somewhat counter-intuitively, to
increase federal authority over the States (which
I define as a hybrid of the People of that state + their Legislatures), which would basically really piss me off. :lol:
(Note: I'm not really sure if the above paragraph will make any sense to anyone but myself. Trust me, in my ****ed up brain that makes perfect sense.)
That's fine. Call your legislators.
I have, and they suck. Oh wait, the next sentence shows you already know that. :lol:
Of course, given the other things they do you you out on IL, I'd not hold out too much hope.
Way to twist the knife. :lol: