"rw" wrote in message
m...
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.

Well if the formula for the number of electors for each state (as set in
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution) is unfair, then the number of
Senators and Congressmen aloted each state is equally unfair (" 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: but no
Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit
under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.")

The right of women to vote was purely a state perogative until the required
3/4ths of the states ratified the 19th Amendment.

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

No, it was legal because the required 3/4ths of the states ratified the 17th
Amendment. Had they not done so it wouldn't be the law.


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

While Federal law (HAVA) calls for the issuing of provisional ballots (which
I assume you mean when you say conditional ballots) this whole issue is
still being contested in the courts on several counts.

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?

14th and 15th & (to some extent)24th Amendments ratified by 3/4ths of the
states.


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?

Yes, and it too is bound by the Constitution.

With the exception of provisional ballots (which are still in somewhat of a
judicial limbo), every example you have put forth could not have occurred
without the consent of at least 3/4ths of the states.


--
Bob Weinberger
La, Grande, OR

place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email