(01-29-2020 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Hamilton argued for giving the electors, not the states, the ability to elect the president.

Quote:It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

My point initial point is simple - there is more to the EC than just state sovereignty.

There is this thing called 'rules of construction'. In terms of legislation or other codification (which the Constitution certainly is) there is one extremely important one: When a body considers language in an earlier version, but does not include it prior to enactment of the statute, it can be presumed that the limitation was not intended by the legislature.

Great, Hamilton considered the concept above. I will grant you everyone at that convention noted it.

Funny thing --- it was not included.

Funny, thank you for evidence.

Let's repeat: the idea that you promote above as 'evidence' that your thesis should be considered shows that it *was* considered. And the historical record shows that it was, in fact, rejected.

Seriously dude, your thrashing here doesnt help you.

Quote:No matter how foundational you feel state sovereignty was (and I agree it was foundational), there is sufficient evidence that other considerations were very important in develop the EC today. So when we discuss pros/cons or modifications to the EC, it isn't irrelevant to discuss them in relation to concepts outside of state sovereignty - yet I have been basically told that this type of conversation isn't allowed.

You are free to talk about them all you want. To say it is a consideration in light of the Founding Fathers is just stupid; note above.

You are free to promote the concept all you want. But, in fact, at the present time it is a non-issue in terms of the current setup and operation.

If *you* want to make the issue into individual fairness -- knock yourself out there, lad. But, dont tell me that the system has the concept of the individual voter of a nation at its core -- it is simply wrong in history and in the facts.

I mean, good god your fing 'proof' above actually detracts from your thesis that the the Founders intended that to be inherent in it. At least give *that* a fing break.