Reply #8: Not, it is not irrelevant at all [View All]

[theboss]

Because once a state action is taken, it has to follow the Constitution. In other words, once the state's choose to allow popular election of the electors, they can't break the rules.

The problem is not with the method of selection. The problem is that States like Ohio turn over running the election to elected officials who then set guidelines that can vary from district to district.

It's unfair that a segment of the population in Vermont can vote while a similarly situated segment in Mississippi cannot (felons, for example - though I don't know if felons are forbidden from voting in MS). It's also unfair that I in Fairfax County, Virginia vote on a nice shiny machine in an uncrowded area while citizens in the District of Columbia vote on a butterfly ballot. Finally, it's unfair that my recount system is different from yours.

By establishing a federal right to vote (as Jackson wants), you eliminate all these problems. People in Ohio will under the same guidelines as people in Florida and be counted the same way. You won't have different recount rules for each district either.

And the practical affect of this will be that our systems for electing Senators, Reps, Mayors, etc will be the same, because it will be impractical to have two systems in each state.

(Edited point: What Jackson is really trying to accomplish is create a federal standard for electing the president. The federal government currently can't step in and say, "Everyone must use this type of punch-card ballot, which creates inherent inequities from state to stae and district to district").