Actually, each state legislature determines the rules of selection for electors, and could, hypothetically, create a slate itself, with no popular vote. That is why the determination of the state legislature of Florida to meet the "safe harbor" deadline was determinative in the 2000 election: ultimately, the state legislature had the power to settle the question of electors, not the state Supreme Court. If it wanted matters settled by a deadline, and the mandate of the Court conflicted with timely settlement, the mandate was overturned.
Customarily, the states use actual popular polling to determine electors, the possible discrepancy arising from the system of "winner takes all" which prevails in most states. Since all electors go to the candidate winning in each state, the electors do not reflect the actual proportions of the popular vote.
Is it a good system? It was, certainly, insofar as it allowed a balance between the federal and state governments which was found congenial, and permitted the Union. At this point it is less clear, insofar as we view ourselves more as a nation, less as a federation. That is ultimately the point it hinges on, though: whether federalism has become "administrative", or remains substantive, will be reflected in whether we retain the Electoral College........ |
