Reply #49: I think Durbin is correct about Bush v Gore. [View All]

[thanatonautos]

The Supreme Court noted that a State may, at it's own discretion,
choose to select its electors in another way than by popular
election, and that the constitution does not guarantee
a right of the people to vote for President.

See the per curiam in Bush v Gore, on page 5,
immediately under section B.

`The individual citizen has no federal right to vote
for electors for President of the United States unless
and until the state legislature chooses a statewide
election as its means to implement its power to appoint
members of the electoral college.' US Const. Article II, (1).

See also Rehnquist and Scalia's concurrence in
Bush v. Gore at page 2, referencing again
Article II, section 1, cl. 2 of the constitution,
"which specifies: `each state shall appoint in
such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct'
electors for President and Vice President."

AFAIK electors are in fact chosen by popular vote
in all 50 states, excepting in extraordinary situations.

If the right does not exist, there can be no fraud,
except in elections for those offices determined by popular
vote. In other words, I'm asking if the notion of the
Presidential Election itself is really the fraud?

The right to vote for electors has been granted under State
Law, by the State legislatures, and in addition, the crime of
State election fraud is well-defined under State Laws.

However, I am in agreement that the right of all
individuals to vote in federal elections should have
been explicitly guaranteed in the constitution.