<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Jon &quot;J-Dubbs&quot; West</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.jonathanwest.net/blog/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.jonathanwest.net/blog</link>
	<description>The personal site of Jon West.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:04:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Al Franken sworn in as U.S. senator by mvymvy</title>
		<link>http://www.jonathanwest.net/blog/2009/07/al-franken-sworn-in-as-u-s-senator/comment-page-1/#comment-2</link>
		<dc:creator>mvymvy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:04:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jonathanwest.net/blog/?p=1265#comment-2</guid>
		<description>What  the Founding Fathers said in the U.S. Constitution about how  electors should be awarded  is: &quot;Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .&quot; The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as &quot;plenary&quot; and &quot;exclusive.&quot;

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation&#039;s first presidential election.  

In 1789, in the nation&#039;s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote.

In 1789 only three states used the winner-take-all rule.

There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution.  The winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state&#039;s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers.  The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.  

As a result of changes in state laws, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states. 


The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified  in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What  the Founding Fathers said in the U.S. Constitution about how  electors should be awarded  is: &#8220;Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .&#8221; The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as &#8220;plenary&#8221; and &#8220;exclusive.&#8221;</p>
<p>Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation&#8217;s first presidential election.  </p>
<p>In 1789, in the nation&#8217;s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote.</p>
<p>In 1789 only three states used the winner-take-all rule.</p>
<p>There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution.  The winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state&#8217;s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers.  The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.  </p>
<p>As a result of changes in state laws, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states. </p>
<p>The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified  in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

