Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CVJ who wrote (1567)	1/11/2001 12:41:53 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 59480

You're right, it doesn't require a constitutional amendment, because the state legislatures are free to devise any method they wish to choose the President. But this method would eliminate the concept of states voting for President qua states. The candidates would have to campaign in every congressional district and make promises to the constituents of every congressional district - that's untenable, probably, but it beats having them pander to California and New York and the other big states like they do now. Keeping the two votes per state is a reasonable idea. Ben's asleep, I'll ask him tomorrow. I should be asleep now, too. Zzzzzzz.

To: CVJ who wrote (1567)	1/11/2001 7:43:53 AM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 59480

A State Senator here just introduced that very bill. Excellent idea I think. A proper campaign across all states to revise their rules to apportion one electoral vote according to the majority popular vote in each Cong. District and to award the two Senatorial votes to the winner of the state-wide popular vote, would make the process much more fair and satisfy the existing Constitutional requirement. Uniformity is overrated. ...Constitutional Amendment would be a much better method for permanency and uniformity.