Certificate petition asks Supreme Court to end “Winner Takes All” Electoral College voting


Rodriguez v. Newsom: it may never reach the port of the Supreme Court. Which is a shame, because it raises a lot of important questions about how the US presidential election works, it has the potential to radically change the way the country sees itself as a policy. Constitutional is a kind of weighty constitutional issue that the Supreme Court has to accept, despite possible issues that the Conservative Supreme Court now does not want to address.

The lawsuit was filed by a couple of California Republicans, non-profit organizations, claiming that the “winner takes all” system of presidential voter rewards, which prevails in every state except Maine, Nebraska, meant unconstitutional nos. The California Republican vote is undeniably as worthless as the Utah Democrats in the presidential election, at least as a practical matter. No one is going to compete fiercely in those states, no advertising dollars will flow in;, the fact that there is participation at all, though, is more than a real belief in the power of privilege.

Can you explain what the case is? This is not an attack on the Electoral College as an institution. Unlike nationwide popular voting, the requested mitigation will follow the tradition when states appoint voters to do the real work of electing the next president. What it would do was force states to divide those voters in order to better reflect the actual votes cast as a matter of equal protection.

The attorneys representing this petition are under the jurisdiction of Harvard Larry Lesig, Luis Vera Jr. San Antonio, J. James Ames Denver և: David Boyce Boies Schiller Flexner.

Winners of all presidential elections have faced constitutional challenges in the past, but what has changed since the Court briefly upheld the decision to maintain the system since the 1960s, until Susan Collins went bankrupt take a look, the current Roberts court is more likely to change the established precedent on a percentage basis than even Warren’s court. it is the rise of laws banning unfaithful voters. When states ban voters from exercising independent judgment, the notion of indirect presidential elections, mostly illusory, has become a carte blanche statement that a majority of voters control 100 percent of the vote. As briefly stated, it would be unconstitutional for a state to fill a state-wide legislature with single-party candidates just because that party has won more votes across the country, so why is this allowed during voter elections?

Boyce hopes that the Court sees the main merit of the case. “If the judges look at what is good for the country for a long time, and do not look briefly at what is good for this or that political party, they will see that it will benefit both sides in the long run, strengthen the political system, reduce pressures for divisiveness. “

My initial reaction to this argument was that it invites all sorts of funny jokes. I’m old enough to remember that Virginia was trying to “fix” the 2012 election by shifting the voter turnout from a winner to a congressional model similar to Maine ն Nebraska. Virginia has 9 votes against Romney and 4 against Obama. If 13 votes for 4 points is a dilution of the electorate, then 5 votes deficit for victory, of course, is a disgrace to the Constitution. All this could have been avoided if the Electoral Board had been complete was separated from the membership of the House of Representatives, which, of course, is provided for in the original text of the Constitution, but no circle will think that in 1921 the Chamber will vote for membership can complete the process of amending the Constitution. But, alas, it is definitely a challenge this: The court will not hear.

Boies responded to concerns about the distribution of congressional districts by saying that the Supreme Court ruling, which is based on equal protection, would not condemn the geriatric drug, as it would certainly exacerbate the problem. True is true, but I’m not sure I trust this Supreme Court so much, especially since recently. waved a white flag to defend the right to vote against the party dictatorship – to consider this as something other than an invitation to the Congress to vote in the constituency, by extension, the transformation into a presidential sphere.

But Boyce believes that in the status quo, this is inevitable. As a result of the brief description, the winner’s story takes all the electoral distributions, noting that not only was Article II’s claim “not in the general public sense” to divide voters “as its legislature can guide”, but neither the convention nor the Commenting on the Federalist documents, Jefferson made it clear that this was a bad idea, but one that his followers should accept, as John von Adams’s supporters had already done. Boyce said that while Democrats were generally in favor of discriminating against independent committees to end the catastrophe of extremism, “I am surprised that the good governance of the Democratic Party has won over political realism.” Eventually, he says, Democrats will start throwing blue states as aggressively as Republican lawmakers strangled Wisconsin as a problem with the collapse of the electoral college system.

The plaintiffs believe that the correct solution, և the solution, which is based on equal protection, is the proportional distribution of voters. If 63% of California votes for Biden, he should get voters (except counting), not 55. He says Mississippi should give 2 out of 6 votes to Democrats. It is a model adopted by some post-Soviet states – not for the electorate, but for the parliament itself – in drafting their constitutions so that it is not without precedent.

Personally, I think it will be any decision this: The court will make the supercomputer charge until Demer’s “good governance” decides that every district in New York State includes a city district. At that moment, everyone has to give in and take another path. In addition, the legal precedent for diluting voter turnout in the regions does not bode well for a possible presidential administration.

Can such a thing really cure a split? It all depends on one argument, but Bois makes good sense on his pitch.

This result is more closely aligned with the voter’s choice. It accomplishes a number of secondary goals. Compete in each state. There are only a few frontline states. This will involve more people in the process. Candidates had to compete at the national level. There would be more incentive to try to turn to the middle, as each vote really counts. Today, if you can not reach 50.1% in the state, it is not worth trying. The second positive result is the involvement of the parties in a real debate that brings the country closer. The winner enters into force to spoil the minority political party in one state.

The effect of this party atrophy is very real. Which state party apparatus even bothers with election initiatives that will not matter? The initiative of Stacey Abrams to get a vote in the state of Ac orgia was impressive, but relied on the fact that the state is far away. Even if the mass turnout could be randomly circulating in the state House, it is often frustrating that the top of the ticket feels inaccessible to inaccessible guerrillas. And if the party is weak, then the community ties are weak; it just intensifies the minority party’s hopes for more lasting influence.

Although the case presents an issue that should be isolated from the party’s demands at the moment, the original court, which really only thinks about the modern political positions of the Republican Party, despite the “initial public understanding” of the Constitution, it is good to consider what It happens when Texas throws a narrow eye on the Democrats in the Republican elections. It is a result that is probable in the short term, և all, but in the inevitable medium term և, a result that completely condemns the Republic in the territory of the republic, if it happens.

Oh, the Supreme Court. We can correct deepening divisions in the country, encourage people who have no right to feel in this nation. But ahead is all the campaign announced by Donald Trump in 2023. Or at least the campaign of Don Jr., which put pressure on Sam Alito և ACB.

Yes, isn’t it nice to think so?

(Go to the next page to read the lawsuit).

Earlier: Why is the electoral board constitutional?

Shot in the headJoe patrice: He is the senior editor and co-author of “Above the Law” Thinking like a lawyerFeel free Also: any advice, questions or comments. Follow him Twitter: if you are interested in law, politics առողջ a healthy portion of college sports news. He serves as a RPN Executive Search Executive Director,

Like it? Share with your friends!



Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *