Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader is flummoxed. Who’da thunk that posting on the Electoral College would be such a hot topic. (It makes your Maximum Leader rethink the whole “naked starlets jello wrestling” post he’s been working on.)

Well, the Smallholder makes a number of good point in his post. Although your Maximum Leader would just like to point out that while he agrees with his esteemed Minister’s assesment that the system currently favours Republicans in small states; it does not always mean it will be thus. Party realignment can and does happen. As it stands today, the Smallholder is exactly right.

Loyal minion, JohnL of TexasBestGrok (which is, by the way, the finest blog on the web for aircraft cheesecake photos and Sci-Fi babeage) writes:

The best proposal I’ve seen yet for reform that takes into account the federalism justification for the Electoral College (especially the protection of smaller states’ interests viz. the larger ones’) is Winner-take-all for 2 votes (equivalent to Senators) and the remaining electors chosen according to the winner of the House Districts. I think Nebraska and Maine use this method currently.

Funny that Molly the Texas Democrat is upset about the Republican redistricting. Pass this little note to her:

“Hello goose? Gander speaking. This sauce would be especially tasty on you, given the actions of the Democratic Party machine in Texas during the 100+ years after Reconstruction.”

Your Maximum Leader will play diplomat here. We all know that BOTH PARTIES are equally cutthroat when it comes to redistricting. It is all about power. And power doesn’t always bring out the best in people. (Except your Maximum Leader, who defies Acton every day.) And your Maximum Leader doesn’t want to beat up on Molly. We have no idea of her thoughts on the whole Texas redistricting fight. Anyway, your Maximum Leader was the one to bring it up. Not Molly. From what your Maximum Leader can discern, Molly appears to be an old-fashioned Texas Democrat. (i.e.: not of the whiney northeast liberal type.)

Excursus: Of course, if Molly cares to share her thoughts, your Maximum Leader would be happy to post them. As for your Maximum Leader, let us just say that he finds whiney legislators remarkably intolerable. If you lose your fight, regroup and fight another day. Don’t get pissy and pack up and move to a different state or country. That brings out the worst in your Maximum Leader. He would be inclined to find such legislators - regardless of party affiliation - remove them from office; and flog them to within an inch of their lives. Part of the game of politics is that you win some and lose some. Your Maximum Leader cannot abide sore losers.

JohnL’s point is an interesting one. And indeed, just as he said, Nebraska and Maine have district apportionment methods of allocating their electors.

Your Maximum Leader maintains his assertion that proportional allocation of Electors would negate one of the psitive aspects of the Electoral College. That of mandate generation.

This website was quite helpful in two ways. First, it helped your Maximum Leader confirm JohnL’s assertion concerning Nebraska and Maine. (Which he seemed to remember hearing about at some point - probably 2000.) And it talked about “Faithless Elector” laws. The “Faithless Elector” is a potential problem for the Electoral College system.

And while we are on the subject… Here is a topical news story to add as a little codicil to our discussion. A West Virginia elector is claiming that he will become a “faithless elector” if called upon to support his candidate, President Bush.

The “Faithless Elector” issue brings up the “Faithless Elector” laws. Thanks to Dr. Jimmy Helms, your Maximum Leader learned many years ago that Virginia had “Faithless Elector” laws. Of course, your Maximum Leader around the same time became convinced (as are the writers of the National Council of State Legislatures site) that the laws might not stand up to a challenge. Your Maximum Leader would like to think that any court would support the rights of the states to determine and guide Electors as they choose. Especially since the implication of Article II Section 1 of the Constitution (even as modified by the 12th Amendment) is that the States should make laws concerning Electors. The text reads:

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.

So it would appear as though the States could pass and enforce “Faithless Elector” laws. But who knows what convoluted “logic” a court would use in such a case.

Anyhow…

That is all for now. Baseball is on afterall.

Carry on.