The New McCarthyism.

[Col. Crackpot]

Well it wouldn't only because it's impossibe to get 3/4th of the state to ratify. If the electoral college was abolished without a legal amendment then yes the small state would rebel. (again a moot point as it is not going to happen)

yes, the mighty armies of Rhode Island and Delaware will rise and deliver a crushing blow against tyranny.

While i agree that it is a moot point in respect to the constitutional ammendment process (they are few and far between. Rarely can you get 3/4ths of the states, 3/4ths of congress and the President to agree on anything) you forget one thing. We live in a time where the genie of the activist judiciary has been let out of her bottle. The courts no longer pay any respect whatsoever to constitutional proceses regarding constitutional ammendments. If you don't like a law, search tirelessly for a minute piece of legal minutae and use it to deem said law unconstitutional.

[Aeolus]

Well it wouldn't only because it's impossibe to get 3/4th of the state to ratify. If the electoral college was abolished without a legal amendment then yes the small state would rebel. (again a moot point as it is not going to happen)

yes, the mighty armies of Rhode Island and Delaware will rise and deliver a crushing blow against tyranny.

While i agree that it is a moot point in respect to the constitutional ammendment process (they are few and far between. Rarely can you get 3/4ths of the states, 3/4ths of congress and the President to agree on anything) you forget one thing. We live in a time where the genie of the activist judiciary has been let out of her bottle. The courts no longer pay any respect whatsoever to constitutional proceses regarding constitutional ammendments. If you don't like a law, search tirelessly for a minute piece of legal minutae and use it to deem said law unconstitutional.

While I agree that the courts are very activist at this time, even they can't touch the electoral college. It is clearly in the "needs an amendment" area. And on top of that the courts are much more "pro states right" now than they have been in many decades.

[Aeolus]

yes, the mighty armies of Rhode Island and Delaware will rise and deliver a crushing blow against tyranny.

Well I never said they would win.
The tragedy is in the rebelion, not it's falure

[Joe]

I dont pretend to understand American demographics totally. But I will ask the question again.
Are you American, or are you not?

I'm both an American and a Georgian. E Pluribus Unum, remember?

[Tom_Aurum]

A few more points:

The electoral college was primarily devised as a method to be able to count all the votes from such a vast nation, unescessary in our modern age. It is my (not so) humble opinion that the only reason it is there still is so that a backwards minority can keep any positive change from happening. But anyways.

Our government's current definition of "terrorist" is not limited to Muslim extremists. It also includes varied groups of corporate saboteurs, activist groups, and civil disobients. Persons who attend meetings of relatively peaceful "anarchist" groups, persons who may speak up for but not participate in the actions of the ELF, may also be included in this set. There was a relatively recent case (I forget details, but it's a relatively publicized case involving a man nicknamed "free") where a man was extremely oversentenced for burning a pair of SUVs, under the concept that it was "terrorism".

One of the major things that happened with McCarthyism was that public opinion was manipulated to the point where anyone thought to be communist was blacklisted. This included many producers, directors, and actors of the time. Their movies were boycotted, and their carreers were ruined.

And yes, I would like much more of a direct democracy than we currently have. It might be a little chaotic at first, but things would actually get done.

[Wicked Pilot]

Wrong. Current international law (prompted and in some cases imposed by the US) means that "terrorism" can now be an ideological belief as well. How many of the people at Guantanamo Bay were actually active terrorists at the time of their capture and how many were just members of the Taliban organisation?

Oh please, spare me your appeal to jargon. I already explained the difference between action and belief and you decide to get nitpicky over how so and so define such and what under the law. Use a dictionary next time. As to "just being members of the Taliban", what the fuck are you thinking? These are the people who beheaded women for wearing nail polish. All adults in the Taliban organization joined and/or stayed under their own accord. As long as a good faith effort is made to make sure that the people in Cuba are Taliban and not civilians captured in the wrong place at the wrong time, then I will not lose any sleep if they all rot a die on that island.

I hate to break it to you but it is currently a crime to endorse terrorism in many nations, even if you just say: "You know, I think that those Mujhadeen blokes are just misunderstood..."

It's not a crime here just yet, but there are certainly many who believe it should be. Hopefully our constitution will turn out stronger than Bush and Ashcroft's appeals to public fear.

[Knife]

Our government's current definition of "terrorist" is not limited to Muslim extremists. It also includes varied groups of corporate saboteurs, activist groups, and civil disobients. Persons who attend meetings of relatively peaceful "anarchist" groups, persons who may speak up for but not participate in the actions of the ELF, may also be included in this set. There was a relatively recent case (I forget details, but it's a relatively publicized case involving a man nicknamed "free") where a man was extremely oversentenced for burning a pair of SUVs, under the concept that it was "terrorism".

One of the major things that happened with McCarthyism was that public opinion was manipulated to the point where anyone thought to be communist was blacklisted. This included many producers, directors, and actors of the time. Their movies were boycotted, and their carreers were ruined. .

Please, going after people who burn other peoples property weather it be cars or houses is not exactly being persecuted for ideology. I also love your 'persons who attend meetings of relatively peaceful "anarchist' groups'. What the hell is a relatively peaceful anarchist group? That is a fucking conterdiction on terms.

You have a leap in logic there, in that people who did nothing but believe in certain political and sociological principles were percecuted under McCarthy should be equated to people like ELF and 'peaceful anarchists' who actually do violent and illegal things.

[Durandal]

We live in a Republic with democratic procedures. It is still a Republic.

Procedure is what defines a government.

The electoral college was designed so that one region of the country could not dominate over another. It was also designed to ensure a balance of power in the federal government; each state has (roughly, though there are some kinks) equal influence in the house, the senate, and also within the Presidency.

No, each state does not have roughly equal influence in the House. House representation is doled out based on population. Furthermore, California has 50 electoral votes, while Montana has 1. I don't see anyone in the smaller states pissing and moaning about that, but it just happens to be the same situation they'd be in if the vote was a straight popular one.

And the popular vote concern is hooey. An estimated 5% of the popular vote is fraudulent. A purely democratic election of the President in a country as large as America wouldn't work.

With the technology we have today, yes it would. The only thing preventing it from working is this fetish that smaller states have for the electoral college. The electoral college was supposed to represent the popular vote. But there's no need for it anymore, since the popular vote can represent itself in a practical manner, where as in the 18th century, it could not.

The electoral college does nothing but add error margins to the final count. Any time you put in an extra step, you're going to increase your error. If we simply used these little things called computers, we could have a much cleaner election not riddled with subjectivity, like the current chad system, assuming that proper security precautions are taken, of course. But if the government is confident enough in the internet and 128-bit SSL for me to file my taxes online, then it should be good enough for the presidential election, as well.

Would anyone mind if I split this thread off into a new electoral college thread? It could stay in here, since the electoral college does have to do with democracy vs. republic, so let me know.

[Tom_Aurum]

Quoth Knife

"Please, going after people who burn other peoples property weather it be cars or houses is not exactly being persecuted for ideology. I also love your 'persons who attend meetings of relatively peaceful "anarchist' groups'. What the hell is a relatively peaceful anarchist group? That is a fucking conterdiction on terms."



Okay, do you want me to make a direct line here? A certain community anarchist group has, among its activities, random marches, copwatch (a group that tapes arrests in downtown to make sure that nobody has their civil rights violated), and a few other strangely law-abiding activities, including making lots of noise with pots and pans in front of a local corporate development.

Anyways, what the man who burned the SUV's in a show lot committed was arson, however because he did it with a political ideal behind it, he was given a far stricter sentence than was the current standard of the law. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be prosecuting criminals, but I am saying that their political view shouldn't be part of the sentencing procedure. It is unjust, and furthermore discriminatory.

Anyways, furthermore, we could go into pages upon pages of discussion on the definition of terrorism. I'm not saying that what groups such as ELF or others do is nescessarily right, or legal, or moral. But it does not come under the same threat level as persons who decide that they are going to see how many they can kill in one day. However, the government is deciding to take in both of these groups under the same category, subject them to the same laws as if they are the same sort of criminal.

Furthermore, the way the government treats such criminals is with a complete and total disregard for due process, which all persons who come under the jurisdiction of U.S. law, citizen or not, deserve under our constitution.

That's a rant.

[Knife]

Tom_Aurum wrote:

Okay, do you want me to make a direct line here? A certain community anarchist group has, among its activities, random marches, copwatch (a group that tapes arrests in downtown to make sure that nobody has their civil rights violated), and a few other strangely law-abiding activities, including making lots of noise with pots and pans in front of a local corporate development.

If thats all they do, then fine. But they would hardly be considered a 'anarchist' group.

Anyways, what the man who burned the SUV's in a show lot committed was arson, however because he did it with a political ideal behind it, he was given a far stricter sentence than was the current standard of the law. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be prosecuting criminals, but I am saying that their political view shouldn't be part of the sentencing procedure. It is unjust, and furthermore discriminatory.

Arson, destruction of private property, tressepassing, and probably a few more. And his intent is relevant. All crimes are judged with intent in mind, that is why we have hate crime laws and it is also why killing someone in defense is not seen as bad as killing someone for his cash. If his intent was to scare, discourage, or otherwise make the car dealership bend to the will and policies of the defendent by showing him 'what could happen' if he doesn't, then that is terrorism.

Anyways, furthermore, we could go into pages upon pages of discussion on the definition of terrorism. I'm not saying that what groups such as ELF or others do is nescessarily right, or legal, or moral. But it does not come under the same threat level as persons who decide that they are going to see how many they can kill in one day. However, the government is deciding to take in both of these groups under the same category, subject them to the same laws as if they are the same sort of criminal.

True, the destruction of private property is not as bad as the destruction of private citizens but the destruction of private property is still a long shot from the persecution of political beliefs that you tried to equate it too.

Furthermore, the way the government treats such criminals is with a complete and total disregard for due process, which all persons who come under the jurisdiction of U.S. law, citizen or not, deserve under our constitution.

There is presedent in both US law and international law. Non combatents and illegal combatents and all. Besides, criminal court is not designed for military matters. That is why we have military courts.

[Joe]

No, each state does not have roughly equal influence in the House. House representation is doled out based on population. Furthermore, California has 50 electoral votes, while Montana has 1. I don't see anyone in the smaller states pissing and moaning about that, but it just happens to be the same situation they'd be in if the vote was a straight popular one.

That's not what I meant; I was referring to the fact that the electoral college gives each state the same amount of power in the election of the Presidency as it does in the House, since electoral votes are based on House seats. The Senate completes this structure, which tends to favor the smaller states, in contrast to the House and Presidency which favor the larger states.

With the technology we have today, yes it would. The only thing preventing it from working is this fetish that smaller states have for the electoral college. The electoral college was supposed to represent the popular vote. But there's no need for it anymore, since the popular vote can represent itself in a practical manner, where as in the 18th century, it could not.

No, the electoral college was part of the federal system designed by the Founders. It was never meant to reflect the popular vote, it was meant to reflect the will of the states; the Presidency was never meant to be the massively powerful office that it is today. And of course smaller states like the electoral college, because it prevents them from being dominated by the heavily populated, urban states in the Presidential election.

The electoral college does nothing but add error margins to the final count. Any time you put in an extra step, you're going to increase your error. If we simply used these little things called computers, we could have a much cleaner election not riddled with subjectivity, like the current chad system, assuming that proper security precautions are taken, of course. But if the government is confident enough in the internet and 128-bit SSL for me to file my taxes online, then it should be good enough for the presidential election, as well.

Quite untrue; the electoral college merely contains vote fraud (which is inevitable, even with modern technology) to the swing states. In a direct election system, states with majorities would be induced to produce more votes for that majority, and election night would become even more than it has been in the past The Night of the Living Dead Democratic Voters. States with clear majorities won't bother with such vote fraud under the electoral college, because it won't matter; it doesn't matter if a candidate gets 51% or 99% of the popular vote in a state, he still wins those electoral votes.

The appeal of a direct election is also widely overstated; if I'm not mistaken, only three of the world's industrialized democracies have a purely direct election for the President, and for Russia that ended disastrously in 1996, with Boris Yeltsin winning the Presidency with only 36 percent of the vote. The electoral college discourages too many candidates from running, allowing one candidate to receive a clear electoral mandate. A direct election system, by contrast, would almost guarantee Presidents elected by the minority.

[Aeolus]

A few more points:

The electoral college was primarily devised as a method to be able to count all the votes from such a vast nation, unescessary in our modern age. It is my (not so) humble opinion that the only reason it is there still is so that a backwards minority can keep any positive change from happening. But anyways.

Our government's current definition of "terrorist" is not limited to Muslim extremists. It also includes varied groups of corporate saboteurs, activist groups, and civil disobients. Persons who attend meetings of relatively peaceful "anarchist" groups, persons who may speak up for but not participate in the actions of the ELF, may also be included in this set. There was a relatively recent case (I forget details, but it's a relatively publicized case involving a man nicknamed "free") where a man was extremely oversentenced for burning a pair of SUVs, under the concept that it was "terrorism".

One of the major things that happened with McCarthyism was that public opinion was manipulated to the point where anyone thought to be communist was blacklisted. This included many producers, directors, and actors of the time. Their movies were boycotted, and their carreers were ruined.

And yes, I would like much more of a direct democracy than we currently have. It might be a little chaotic at first, but things would actually get done.

Destroying other peoples property to affect political change is terrorism. That is why the ELF and PETA are considered terrorist organizations.

[Durandal]

That's not what I meant; I was referring to the fact that the electoral college gives each state the same amount of power in the election of the Presidency as it does in the House, since electoral votes are based on House seats. The Senate completes this structure, which tends to favor the smaller states, in contrast to the House and Presidency which favor the larger states.

Ah, okay. My mistake.

No, the electoral college was part of the federal system designed by the Founders. It was never meant to reflect the popular vote, it was meant to reflect the will of the states; the Presidency was never meant to be the massively powerful office that it is today. And of course smaller states like the electoral college, because it prevents them from being dominated by the heavily populated, urban states in the Presidential election.

If it wasn't meant to reflect the popular vote, then why are electoral votes given on the basis of population? Smaller states are already dominated by larger states because they get less electoral votes. California alone has more votes than 10 randomly picked smaller states combined. I honestly don't see the big deal about just going with a straight popular vote, other than this incessent hard-on for the "will of the states" or whatever.

Quite untrue; the electoral college merely contains vote fraud (which is inevitable, even with modern technology) to the swing states. In a direct election system, states with majorities would be induced to produce more votes for that majority, and election night would become even more than it has been in the past The Night of the Living Dead Democratic Voters. States with clear majorities won't bother with such vote fraud under the electoral college, because it won't matter; it doesn't matter if a candidate gets 51% or 99% of the popular vote in a state, he still wins those electoral votes.

The appeal of a direct election is also widely overstated; if I'm not mistaken, only three of the world's industrialized democracies have a purely direct election for the President, and for Russia that ended disastrously in 1996, with Boris Yeltsin winning the Presidency with only 36 percent of the vote. The electoral college discourages too many candidates from running, allowing one candidate to receive a clear electoral mandate. A direct election system, by contrast, would almost guarantee Presidents elected by the minority.

That's an interesting argument. I'll have to think this over a little more.

[Joe]

If it wasn't meant to reflect the popular vote, then why are electoral votes given on the basis of population? Smaller states are already dominated by larger states because they get less electoral votes. California alone has more votes than 10 randomly picked smaller states combined. I honestly don't see the big deal about just going with a straight popular vote, other than this incessent hard-on for the "will of the states" or whatever.

Hey, it isn't just my hard-on. The founders had it also. And this "hard-on" is what makes the U.S. the United States of America, instead of just America.

If all that is required of a candidate to win the Presidency is popular vote, then he doesn't have to have a majority of anything. At least with the Electoral College, there is some majority consensus among the states as to who the President should be.

As for the 2000, election, comparing the two ridiculously close popular vote shares held by the two major candidates is meaningless. Only about half of the country voted, for one, so neither can really claim a mandate from the people. Secondly, in states that are safe one way or another, such as California for Gore and Texas for Bush, a lot of people aren't going to vote simply because it's a waste of time. Voting for Bush in California is going to be a waste because Gore is guaranteed to win that state, and voting for Gore in Texas is going to be pointless because that's a state that Bush is going to win. Thirdly, vote fraud, which is inevitable, has historically favored Democrats more than Republicans (see Tammany Hall for what I'm talking about).

It is quite frankly impossible to get a consensus concerning the popular vote in America. It is, however, possible to get a consensus from the states, and that's what the Electoral College does.

[0.1]

Viva the Republic of California. We're one of the largest economies in the world, and let's face it, population wise, we outnumber the nearest states. If the U.S. fragments, expect Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and probably Arizona to be absorbed into California.

The first major annoyance we Californians would have to face would be those redneck Texans. The eastern U.S. can do whatever it wants, all we really want after we take over the neighboring states are the Dakotas (where the ICBM silos are). Heck, by taking Washington, we'd get Bangor Bay and all the Pac fleet's boomers. The only major thing we'll lack is strategic air capabilities. Too bad Whiteman is in Missouri.

[HemlockGrey]

I would like the electoral college to be revised, so that a canidate with 30% of the pop. vote got 30% of the electoral vote, etc.

[Queeb Salaron]

EDIT: Here's Florida, and yes, those red stripes are what you think it stands for.

Communism?

[Glocksman]

Communism?

Probably, when you consider all of the transplanted New Yorkers down there now.

[Johonebesus]

If it wasn't meant to reflect the popular vote, then why are electoral votes given on the basis of population? Smaller states are already dominated by larger states because they get less electoral votes. California alone has more votes than 10 randomly picked smaller states combined. I honestly don't see the big deal about just going with a straight popular vote, other than this incessent hard-on for the "will of the states" or whatever.

Hey, it isn't just my hard-on. The founders had it also. And this "hard-on" is what makes the U.S. the United States of America, instead of just America.

If all that is required of a candidate to win the Presidency is popular vote, then he doesn't have to have a majority of anything. At least with the Electoral College, there is some majority consensus among the states as to who the President should be.

As for the 2000, election, comparing the two ridiculously close popular vote shares held by the two major candidates is meaningless. Only about half of the country voted, for one, so neither can really claim a mandate from the people. Secondly, in states that are safe one way or another, such as California for Gore and Texas for Bush, a lot of people aren't going to vote simply because it's a waste of time. Voting for Bush in California is going to be a waste because Gore is guaranteed to win that state, and voting for Gore in Texas is going to be pointless because that's a state that Bush is going to win. Thirdly, vote fraud, which is inevitable, has historically favored Democrats more than Republicans (see Tammany Hall for what I'm talking about).

It is quite frankly impossible to get a consensus concerning the popular vote in America. It is, however, possible to get a consensus from the states, and that's what the Electoral College does.

Are there any states where the electors are not chosen by popular vote or obligated to abide by the popular vote? If the Georgia Senate appointed electors at its own discretion, then they would reflect the will of the State, but as it is the Electoral College is generally set up to reflect the will of the People. The problem is it does not reflect popular will accurately. Roughly half of the voters of Florida wanted Bush, but all of Florida's votes went for Bush. This was not because the system is designed to reflect the will of the State, but because it is poorly designed to reflect the will of the People in the state. It does not provide a consensus; it forces an artificial consensus by trying to simplify the will of the People. The way the system works now is inaccurate and inefficient. If we keep the Electoral College, the method of choosing Electors should be reworked.

[Queeb Salaron]

Glocksman: Is the torch on your flag because Indiana hasn't discovered the lightbulb yet?

[Joe]

Are there any states where the electors are not chosen by popular vote or obligated to abide by the popular vote? If the Georgia Senate appointed electors at its own discretion, then they would reflect the will of the State, but as it is the Electoral College is generally set up to reflect the will of the People. The problem is it does not reflect popular will accurately. Roughly half of the voters of Florida wanted Bush, but all of Florida's votes went for Bush. This was not because the system is designed to reflect the will of the State, but because it is poorly designed to reflect the will of the People in the state. It does not provide a consensus; it forces an artificial consensus by trying to simplify the will of the People. The way the system works now is inaccurate and inefficient. If we keep the Electoral College, the method of choosing Electors should be reworked.

You want inaccuracy, elect the President by direct popular vote. As I pointed out, the Electoral College discourages vote fraud by confining it to swing states. As I've said, it is really quite impossible to discern what the true will of the people is, given the fact that only about half of the country actually votes. The Electoral College at least gives the winning candidate a majority vote from the states.

A direct popular vote will not elect a President by the will of the people; it will increase vote fraud, encourage third party candidates to run, effectively eliminating any possibility of a majority of the vote to the winner, and it will compromise national interests for regional ones. An example of this is in 1888; Grover Cleveland promised to drastically reduce tariffs, which would have benefited the South at the expense of the rest of the nation. Because of this Cleveland swept the South, winning an enormous amount of the popular vote, and under a direct election system would have been President since he won the nationwide popular vote, but the Electoral College prevented it. It's a good system. It works. Leave it alone.

[Glocksman]

In my opinion, the EC system's legitimacy in people's eyes ultimately rests on whether or not you view the states as semi-independent political units or as merely administrative subdivisions of the Federal government.

If you think the states are merely adminstrative subdivisons of the national government, the EC thwarts the vox populi.

If you think that the states are separate semi-independent entities that are not merely administrative subdivisions of Washington, then the EC helps to preserve some of the power of the states as individual political entities.

[Johonebesus]

Are there any states where the electors are not chosen by popular vote or obligated to abide by the popular vote? If the Georgia Senate appointed electors at its own discretion, then they would reflect the will of the State, but as it is the Electoral College is generally set up to reflect the will of the People. The problem is it does not reflect popular will accurately. Roughly half of the voters of Florida wanted Bush, but all of Florida's votes went for Bush. This was not because the system is designed to reflect the will of the State, but because it is poorly designed to reflect the will of the People in the state. It does not provide a consensus; it forces an artificial consensus by trying to simplify the will of the People. The way the system works now is inaccurate and inefficient. If we keep the Electoral College, the method of choosing Electors should be reworked.

You want inaccuracy, elect the President by direct popular vote. As I pointed out, the Electoral College discourages vote fraud by confining it to swing states. As I've said, it is really quite impossible to discern what the true will of the people is, given the fact that only about half of the country actually votes. The Electoral College at least gives the winning candidate a majority vote from the states.

A direct popular vote will not elect a President by the will of the people; it will increase vote fraud, encourage third party candidates to run, effectively eliminating any possibility of a majority of the vote to the winner, and it will compromise national interests for regional ones. An example of this is in 1888; Grover Cleveland promised to drastically reduce tariffs, which would have benefited the South at the expense of the rest of the nation. Because of this Cleveland swept the South, winning an enormous amount of the popular vote, and under a direct election system would have been President since he won the nationwide popular vote, but the Electoral College prevented it. It's a good system. It works. Leave it alone.

The problem is not that the president is chosen by the Electoral College, it is the way the College works. Bush is president despite the popular vote only because of a quirk in the way Electors are chosen. Ironically, it was because of a law that was designed to prevent the College from electing a candidate who lost the popular vote. If the Electoral College is to reflect the will of the People, then it should do so as accurately as possible. That half of Florida's voters were effectively disenfranchised is not an accurate reflection of the will of the People in Florida. If Florida's Electors had been split 13-12, that would have been accurate. Furthermore, I am not a student of American history, but I suspect that the Electors had more personal discretion in 1888 than they do today. The regulation that got Bush elected was designed to prevent that sort of thing from happening. If you want the College to somehow be above the Popular Will, then the Electors should be chosen by the state legislatures or governors. If you want it to reflect Popular Will, then the Electors from each state should represent the voters in rough proportion. The way the College works now is arbitrary and inefficient. It may be more efficient than a direct vote, though I do not think you have proven it to be so, but the present system could be improved.

[Joe]

Don't you understand that you can't possibly discern what the Popular Will is when such a significant portion of the population isn't voting? And if you want an example of the efficiency of a purely direct election, look to Russia in 1996. The Electoral College in this day and age cannot reflect the will of the people - it can only reflect the will of the states, because such a significant portion of the people doesn't vote. And a split electoral vote system would still encourage third-party and independent candidates to run, which could result in pluralities of the electoral vote being had on a regular basis.

The Electoral College is part of the American federalist system. It prevents a candidate who appeals to only one class of voters (like Al Gore and Grover Cleveland) from being elected.

[Glocksman]

If you want the College to somehow be above the Popular Will, then the Electors should be chosen by the state legislatures or governors

You are aware that the Constitution doesn't mandate a vote of the people for either electors or the president?

US Constitution Article 2, Section 1:

Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of
America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together
with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

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.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two
persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State
with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and
of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and
transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to
the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence
of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the
Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes
shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of
Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and
have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall
immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a
Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like
Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be
taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum
for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the
States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In
every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest
Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there
should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from
them by Ballot the Vice-President.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on
which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the
United States.

The state legislatures already have the power to allocate electors.

In fact, if the US Supreme Court hadn't intervened to uphold the equal protection clause and stop the recount of Gore's handpicked counties, the Florida legislature was prepared to name its own slate of electors.

And given that the Republicans had firm control of the Florida legislature, who do you think those electors would have voted for?