Bob Weinberger wrote:

Well since the *number* of electors alloted to each state is set by formula
at the national level, the entire voting population of the state couldn't
serve as electors.

Can't mess with them formulae. No, siree. We'd best go back to black
people being counted as 3/5 of a person (for electoral vote purposes
only, and without the actual right to vote, of course). We'll have to
take away the right to vote from women, as well. You damn Yankees can
take your Federalism and shove it.

In the original Constitution senators were selected by the state
assemblies. No longer. Was that change illegal?

Federal law requires states to issue conditional ballots to people who
were denied the right to vote at the polls. More Federalism!

How about states requiring literacy tests? How about states allowing
only property owners to vote? Is that OK, or is it pernicious Federalism
to ban those practices?

However, essentially the same end result could ensue in
each state if the state were to choose their electors proportionately to the
voting results in their state. The point I am trying to make is that, under
our form of government, the choice of how to select the electors is a state
decision. Any move by the Federal government to dictate to the states how
they do so is a major move towards greater federalism.

Um, is the Supreme Court part of the Federal government?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.