Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader wanted to write this yesterday; but he was too tired to blog in the evening. So, we return to our ongoing discussion of the Electoral College today. (Is this still “Part the First, Subpart(b) or have we moved to (c)?)

Your Maximum Leader will first comment on why he thinks “Anti-Faithless Elector” laws will not withstand Constitutional scrutiny. To address the Smallholder’s point. Your Maximum Leader believes his position is sticking with a strict construction of the Consitution. Historically, states have been able to manage the terms and condiditons of election (except in matters expressly defined by the Constitution). But, as you can imagine, the federal courts have been more activist in their attempts to redress real (or imagined) greivances. Thus, the states have less authority to regulate how elections are conducted. Your Maximum Leader would like to see states be able to (if they so desired) set up a situation in which pledged Electors for all political parties on the ballot are slated. And those Electors are pledged, and perhaps pledged under penalty of law, to vote a particular way. It is a little nonsensical to believe that a state would be keeping with the letter and spirit of the Constitution if they slated one set of Electors to vote a particular way regardless of the outcome of the popular vote.

As this type of restriction (pledging under penalty of law that an Elector will cast a vote in a particular fashion) is not explicitly allowed (or prohibited) in the Constitution, your Maximum Leader feels that should a court ever review a “Faithless Elector” law they will just make up some decision to suit their purposes. Given the way courts have ruled over the past 60 or so years, it seems likely that a federal court would want to take descretionary powers away from states and give it to some federal entity.

Your Maximum Leader doesn’t believe that “Faithless Elector” laws should be unconstitutional. He just believes that federal judges would make them so if such a case ever came up.

Just your Maximum Leader’s feeling… Anyway…

So, after our little posts of last week, your Maximum Leader got some messages from others concerning our Electoral College discussion. Loyal minion JohnL of TexasBestGrok (still the best blog on the internet for aircraft cheesecake and Sci-Fi babes polls) writes:

You can pass along to the Smallholder that I really meant no offense to Molly the Democrat. I admire gun-toting Democrats, a sadly endangered species. I am in fact unaffiliated with either major political party here in Texas.

While it’s no secret to readers of my blog that I will vote for President Bush this time around, it has nothing to do with Party affiliation. It has everything to do with war and taxes. Bush will fight to win the war and seek to make tax relief permanent. Kerry? I’m not sure about the details of all his “plans,” but in short I’m sure he’ll surrender to the Islamists and raise my taxes to boot. I disagree with much of the Republican Party platform, and even more so with the Texas Republican Party platform (which is quite a bit stronger on social conservatism than
on general principles of individual liberty). I guess I’m a South Park Republican, or, under my own terminology, a “clothespin” Republican (see here) who would likely be voting for the Libertarians this year if they hadn’t nominated an anti-war moonbat.

My pointed words were aimed at puncturing the righteous indignation of the Democrats (whom I perhaps unfairly conflated with Molly), who so recently ran a ruthless party machine in Texas. Doesn’t mean I approve of the Republicans’ tit-for-tat, but I do find irony a delicious snack.

Yours in free-market villainy,

JohnL

Your Maximum Leader mut tip his bejeweled floppy hat and say “hear, hear” to JohnL’s love of savory irony in the Texas Democrats being upset that the Texas Republicans learned a thing or two about redistricting from them. The Texas redistricting fight is a perfect illustration of the lesson that neither party really seems to learn. The great wheel of Karma spins around and sometimes you’re on the winning side; and sometimes you come back as a dung beetle. Texas Dems should feel nothing but embarassment over the behaviour of their elected representatives in the Texas House. It was pathetic.

And from what your Maximum Leader knows of Texas Democrats (and of Molly) he feels he can say that Molly does appear to be a rare bird in the flock. And we all here don’t think you meant any offense by lumping Molly in with other Texas Democrats. Really, how were you to know?

You know, your Maximum Leader does think of himself as a conservative. It just so happens that the primary conservative party in the US right now is the Republican party. This does not mean he blindly votes the party line. He can say that while he hasn’t ever voted for a Democrat for President or the House of Representatives; he has voted for Democrats for US Senate, State Senate, State House of Delegates, Mayor, County Supervisor, and Sheriff. Your Maximum Leader does measure the candidates as a whole and votes for the one most aligned with him. He has never felt as though a vote for a third party candidate was a good move. Mainly because as much as I might favour a party like the Libertarians in the abstract, they are oftentimes a bit too wacky for serious consideration.

And, interestingly enough, shortly after JohnL wrote his e-mail your Maximum Leader received an e-mail from the Divine Minion Molly. She wrote:

Dearest Maximum Leader,
I’ve come out of Astro mourning briefly to respond to your wonderful post on the Electoral College. You truly did it justice. Thank you for taking up for me. I’m not a “whiney Democrat”. I just wanted a nice discussion on the Electoral College without the snide goose references. I hadn’t even thought of the redistricting fiasco when asking your thoughts on the Electoral College. I could go on a good rant about Tom DeLay sticking his nose in everything but I won’t.

To JohnL- I’m a 7th generation Texan so my ancestors were probably in the Democratic Party machine after Reconstruction so I’ll take full responsibility for it. Also, he needs to add Claudia Black from Farscape to his Sci Fi Babes.

To Smallholder- I loved your diagram on the filtering between the people and the presidency. I think this is important. The Founding Fathers set it up this way because they didn’t trust the “common people”. Also, I don’t have a concealed handgun permit, so my gun stays at home unless I’m going to the shooting range.

To clarify my position, I favor the proportional allocation plan that is trying to be passed in Colorado. I think more people would vote if they thought their vote would count.

One of the reasons I do like your site dearest Maximum Leader is that you welcome all views on any subject. Plus, you’ve just gotta love someone who speaks about himself in the third person.

Sincerely,
The Divine Minion M
(Not Molly the Texas Democrat)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Blah-dy, blah. It is nice to know that you favour proportional allocation of Electors Molly. But your Maximum Leader really wants to know if you own some mules, t-straps, kitten slides, or strappy sandals? Really now… Let us not get off track talking about the Electoral College or redistricting when we can consider footwear!

Okay… Moving on… The first comment your Maximum Leader must make to Molly is this, “What good does your gun do you at home?” (But if it is there unattended, your Maximum Leader hopes it is in some locked container.) Anyhoo…

Molly, your Maximum Leader is pleased that he lived up to expecations in the Electoral College discourse. He is also sure that the good Minister of Agriculture has as well. Also, Claudia Black does seem quite attractive. Click here for work safe pic. Perhaps JohnL will have a women of Farscape poll. (Alas, your Maximum Leader has never watched Farscape. But he hears that his Villainous Sibling does.) And your Maximum Leader thanks minion Molly for the kind words about writing in the third person. It is much harder than it seems.

As for Tom DeLay’s nose, your Maximum Leader does believe that a US Congressman who doesn’t stick his nose into redistricting in his state is not deserving of being a Congressman. Admittedly, DeLay had a larger role than your Maximum Leader would have thought appropriate in the whole matter. But nonetheless, the problem appears to be with the Democrats not liking the taste of sour grapes.

But back to the matter of the Electoral College…

The more your Maximum Leader thinks about it, the more he believes that moving to proportional allocation of Electoral votes is not something to which we as a nation would look forward. The more your Maximum Leader mulls it over, the more he believes that widespread adoption of proportional allocation would: 1) increase the already insane amount of money candidates spend on elections; 2) would not actually increase the number of candidate visits to out of the way places in an effort to court votes; 3) would result in narrow popular vote/electoral vote outcomes to lead to more polarized politics (lack of mandate); 4) send elections to the House with terrifying freqency; 5) not improve the nature of or character of the national debate.

Well. That seems to be all the pithy commentary your Maximum Leader can summon up right now. He supposes we are back to talking fashion again. (BTW, the lovely Annika wrote your Maximum Leader and said she might come up with a women’s footwear primer for our edification! Yay!)

Carry on.