Abolish the popular vote !

[soap box]

I don't know. Would you trust the people of a country that bought around 1,500,000 "PetRocks" in less than six months (or that buy around 500,000 "ChiaPets" annually [or where over over 30% believe that the creation story contained in 'The Bible' {but not the creation story that is contained in other "Holy Books"} is literally true]) to vote for president?

I trust them to choose their own president.

 

[mrjurrs]

Ok, so how does that address what I said? In fact, how is that not identical to what I said?

We are not operating under the system the founders created. Representation of the house has been diluted, increasing the portion of 'state' electoral votes. Giving CA the same representation based on being a state as WY gets is bad enough, but I can accept that (kind of) based on the original text of the Constitution. Screwing the people's vote in CA to benefit the people of WY is unfair and should be changed as soon as D majority in Congress allows them to.

 

[aociswundumho]

every election we have people vote and then tally up the results and the one with the most votes wins. except our most important election.

and the only reason it's that way is because some guys were battling about power and influence and shit in the 1700/1800s and created a system out of thin air.

Yes, they created a system that led to the richest and most free country in the world.

It's truly bizarre why anyone believes majoritarianism is a good way to make decisions.

 

[soap box]

Mr. Trump received 304 votes and Ms. Clinton received 227 votes. Unless I miss my math, that means that Mr. Trump got more votes than Ms. Clinton did.

Mr. Bush received 271 votes and Mr. Gore received 266 votes. Unless I miss my math, that means that Mr. Bush received more votes than Mr. Gore did.

Well you most certainly do need some help in getting your terminology straight.

BTW, did you know that, in some states, NEITHER Mr. Trump, Ms. Clinton, Mr. Bush, nor Mr. Gore received a single vote?

You will note five things here:

[1] I never specified which states;

[2] I didn't say that it was LIKELY to happen;

[3] You should check your own calculations before saying that mine aren't correct;

[4] When I do make a mistake, I always admit it;

and

[5] It isn't always a good idea to assume that I don't know what I am talking about just because you don't like what I have said.

Now, here is how someone could be elected to the office of President of the United States of America by obtaining 50%+1 of the vote in only TWELVE (not the 13 that I said previously) states and not a single vote anywhere else.

View attachment 67380623​

And what happened to the Democrat votes from Oklahoma?

I was talking about comparing the popular vote, and how it doesn't always reflect the workings of the EC . That is to say, Gore got more votes in 2000 and Hillary got more votes in ' 16. I mean more people voted for them.

Well, if your example isn't likely then your calculator might still work after all.

I only posted a reply because you didn't clarify that you understood that the secenario was possible but not likely.

I can tell you know what you're talking about.

But do you think it's a good idea if a state legislature rejects the popular vote in their state and sends an EC slate that doesn't reflect the choice of their voters? Should a state legislature overturn the popular vote for president of their citizens even if it is legal?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Nope, the founders indicated a system that would have the House be proportionally divided.

Indeed, the House of Representatives IS to be "proportionally divided". However that proportion is according to population and not according to popular vote.

That is no longer the case.

Then you obviously know nothing about how the seats in the US House of Representatives are divided up amongst the several states.

Now I should also point out that, although the US constitution does say "When vacancies happen in the Representation from any state, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies." it also says "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators." and that means that it would be quite "constitutional" for a State government to limit the franchise to those who owned property valued in excess of some set amount.

You will note that there is NO prohibition in the US constitution on any such legislation. That is because the Founding Fathers heartily endorsed that type of property qualification.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Yes, they created a system that led to the richest and most free country in the world.

It's truly bizarre why anyone believes majoritarianism is a good way to make decisions.

The US is neither "the richest" nor the "most free" country in the world DESPITE what you learned at Trump U.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Yes, they created a system that led to the richest and most free country in the world.

It's truly bizarre why anyone believes majoritarianism is a good way to make decisions.

The electoral college, in only one election, has nothing to do with the United States economy and capitalism and how we became strong. That's in different parts of the Constitution.

How do you not know that?

 

[roguenuke]

The thing that needs to be abolished is the Electoral College. Land/states should not be deciding the President (that's what the Senate covers). People should be deciding the President, specifically all the voting citizens of the US, and their state or where they live within the states should not make any difference to the vote count (as it currently does).

 

[EdwinWillers]

We are not operating under the system the founders created. Representation of the house has been diluted, increasing the portion of 'state' electoral votes. Giving CA the same representation based on being a state as WY gets is bad enough, but I can accept that (kind of) based on the original text of the Constitution. Screwing the people's vote in CA to benefit the people of WY is unfair and should be changed as soon as D majority in Congress allows them to.

Not what I wrote. Here's what I wrote:

Well I suggest before anyone pushes too hard to abolish 200+ years of history of the electoral college in favor of a popular vote that you do a serious study of the purpose of the electoral college and the ramifications of abolishing it.​

But do so please without your rose-colored glasses on and do your best to suspend whatever biases you currently have that are prompting such abject foolishness.​

No one questions the obvious fact that we've departed in MANY ways from our founding principles. My point is those principles have basis in wisdom - wisdom that has largely been ignored, discarded, pooh-poohed, or ignorantly repudiated since their inception - which is precisely why "we are not operating under the system the founders created."

That said - and to your complaint, how does the EC give CA the same representation as WY, let alone "screw with people's vote in CA to benefit the people of WY"?
It's my understanding CA has a 55 - 3 advantage over WY in the EC. Not sure how that's "the same representation?"

Admittedly, the population difference between the two states is more like 68:1 (39.5M to 5.8M), so it's probably worth revisiting how the EC votes are distributed - but doing so in alignment with the founder's original purpose of the EC too, which wasn't strictly on the basis of population.

 

[mrjurrs]

Indeed, the House of Representatives IS to be "proportionally divided". However that proportion is according to population and not according to popular vote.

Then you obviously know nothing about how the seats in the US House of Representatives are divided up amongst the several states.

Now I should also point out that, although the US constitution does say "When vacancies happen in the Representation from any state, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies." it also says "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators." and that means that it would be quite "constitutional" for a State government to limit the franchise to those who owned property valued in excess of some set amount.

You will note that there is NO prohibition in the US constitution on any such legislation. That is because the Founding Fathers heartily endorsed that type of property qualification.

The house is not proportionally divided by population. First, each state gets one rep, no matter what the population. Second, the number of reps is artificially capped at 435, expanding the disproportionate representation both in congressional matters and the EC.

The states could try to limit voting rights, but that limitation would fall under the 'manner' of election that the Congress has the ability to legislate. What is constitutional is not limited to the words of the Constitution.

 

[mrjurrs]

Not what I wrote. Here's what I wrote:

Well I suggest before anyone pushes too hard to abolish 200+ years of history of the electoral college in favor of a popular vote that you do a serious study of the purpose of the electoral college and the ramifications of abolishing it.​

But do so please without your rose-colored glasses on and do your best to suspend whatever biases you currently have that are prompting such abject foolishness.​

No one questions the obvious fact that we've departed in MANY ways from our founding principles. My point is those principles have basis in wisdom - wisdom that has largely been ignored, discarded, pooh-poohed, or ignorantly repudiated since their inception - which is precisely why "we are not operating under the system the founders created."

That said - and to your complaint, how does the EC give CA the same representation as WY, let alone "screw with people's vote in CA to benefit the people of WY"?
It's my understanding CA has a 55 - 3 advantage over WY in the EC. Not sure how that's "the same representation?"

Admittedly, the population difference between the two states is more like 68:1 (39.5M to 5.8M), so it's probably worth revisiting how the EC votes are distributed - but doing so in alignment with the founder's original purpose of the EC too, which wasn't strictly on the basis of population.

We are not operating under the system the founders designed because Congress has limited the number of House seats to 435.

It is clear the founders designed the system to protect themselves and their peers. Why else did they prevent poor people from voting?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I was talking about comparing the popular vote, and how it doesn't always reflect the workings of the EC . That is to say, Gore got more votes in 2000 and Hillary got more votes in ' 16. I mean more people voted for them.

The popular vote is, at present, irrelevant. Complaining about the electoral results and basing those complaints on "Well if the rules were different then the results would have been different." is an exercise in futility.

Well, if your example isn't likely then your calculator might still work after all.

There is absolutely no "might" about it.

I only posted a reply because you didn't clarify that you understood that the secenario was possible but not likely.

I can tell you know what you're talking about.

But do you think it's a good idea if a state legislature rejects the popular vote in their state and sends an EC slate that doesn't reflect the choice of their voters?

Personally, no I don't. Do I think that governing strictly in accord with the dictates of the popular vote is always the right way to govern? No I don't.

Should a state legislature overturn the popular vote for president of their citizens even if it is legal?

Personally, I do not think that they SHOULD. If they did then it would be up to the residents of the state to decide how booming the "Hemp & Lamp post" market should be.

Do I think that election results would vary greatly if the entire electorate was informed and rational from the electoral results that would obtain if the entire electorate was as informed and rational as it currently is? No I do not.

Did you know that the relative ranking of the students in a class is (essentially) unchanged whether or not the class is given a copy of the final exam before the exam takes place?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The house is not proportionally divided by population. First, each state gets one rep, no matter what the population.

Granted

Second, the number of reps is artificially capped at 435, expanding the disproportionate representation both in congressional matters and the EC.

Nope. Once you get over the "one Representative minimum" hurdle, the NUMBER of seats per state is divided (as closely as possible) according to the relative populations of the several states.

The states could try to limit voting rights, but that limitation would fall under the 'manner' of election that the Congress has the ability to legislate.

It might. Then again, it might not. "Manner", under one interpretation, refers to HOW and not to WHO.

What is constitutional is not limited to the words of the Constitution.

I'm sorry, but, at least in the United States of America, that is simply NOT the case.

Now as to what the words of the US Constitution mean, that is something else entirely. However there you run into some rather interesting "rules of statutory interpretation". The most interesting of those rules is "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius" which means that the specification of one criteria excludes others. In this case there are three categories of person who may NOT be prohibited from voting and that means that any other category of person MAY be prohibited from voting. Since the US constitution does NOT expressly bar the prohibiting of persons of "little wealth" from voting that means that such a prohibition IS "constitutionally allowable".

 

[CharloTexan]

what tyranny?

Any tyranny. Especially the one that scares the conservatives so much that it causes them to buy 50 different guns and ammunition.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

We are not operating under the system the founders designed because Congress has limited the number of House seats to 435.

Oh PIFFLE.

When the US constitution was ratified the population per electoral district was around 33,000.

If one were to credit your "logic" then there would have to be approximately 10,130 House of Representative seats today.

What that would mean was that, if every Representative were to speak once (for three minutes) on a piece of legislation then it would take around 100 sitting days (that works out to 8 calendar months) to progress the legislation one step.

It is clear the founders designed the system to protect themselves and their peers. Why else did they prevent poor people from voting?

Because, in those days, it was considered quite normal for only "The Right People" to have any real say in government.

BTW, you do realize that, today, it is considered quite normal for only "The Right People" to have any real say in government (the only things that have changed are [1] the definition of "The Right People", and [2] the definition of "real say in government").

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I trust them to choose their own president.

And I trust the system to give them what they chose (which is not necessarily what they thought they were choosing).

 

[mrjurrs]

Granted

Nope. Once you get over the "one Representative minimum" hurdle, the NUMBER of seats per state is divided (as closely as possible) according to the relative populations of the several states.

It might. Then again, it might not. "Manner", under one interpretation, refers to HOW and not to WHO.

I'm sorry, but, at least in the United States of America, that is simply NOT the case.

Now as to what the words of the US Constitution mean, that is something else entirely. However there you run into some rather interesting "rules of statutory interpretation". The most interesting of those rules is "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius" which means that the specification of one criteria excludes others. In this case there are three categories of person who may NOT be prohibited from voting and that means that any other category of person MAY be prohibited from voting. Since the US constitution does NOT expressly bar the prohibiting of persons of "little wealth" from voting that means that such a prohibition IS "constitutionally allowable".

So it is not proportional representation. Lower population states receive more representation proportionally than higher population states due to the inclusion of Senate rep in the EC and the distribution of House seats.

Manner includes who, check the VRA of 1965.

Not true? Where is the Constitutional right to abortion in the Constitution?

It means that a law could be passed because it is not expressly unconstitutional, but it would be challenged and overturned based on a variety of SCOTUS cases. I'd start with Griffin v Illinois 1957 (I think).

"The importance of the Griffin case arises from the fact that for the first time the Supreme Court has addressed itself squarely to the impact of poverty on constitutional rights under the due process and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment."

 

[CharloTexan]

Yes, I quite understand how some people can confuse "MY Guys do not have total power." with "tyranny".

The US DOES have the type of governmental system that the Founding Fathers had as their Original Intent.

If you don't believe me, try actually reading the Constitution of the United States of America IN THE CONTEXT of the laws in force at the time it was ratified. The Founding Fathers would have been 100% opposed to having "The People" actually select the President of the United States of America (a position that they thought should only be filled by the choice of "The Right People").

I actually read the Constitution of the US as much as you do, no doubt. Of course it is based on their Original Intent, or amendments thereto. That's not the point. The legislatures of every state have determined minimally that the citizens of the state WILL HAVE A VOTE in electing the Electoral College. And it's not the Electoral College that I have a beef with, per sey. I think it's a good idea to have a buffer between the people and the Presidency. I just have a problem with the manner in which most states apportion their Electors - winner take all. Again, that negates the will of the minority - though it be almost the same size as the majority - in that state, and of late, negates the will of the majority in the United States. And, CONTRARY to the US Constitution, I believe the Presidency should be substantially elected by the popular vote, with the Electoral College abiding by those wishes in most circumstances. I can't think of a good reason why the will of a minority of the citizens of the USA should be represented by a President essentially appointed by a minority of the citizens, via the Electors and State Legislations.

 

[mrjurrs]

Oh PIFFLE.

When the US constitution was ratified the population per electoral district was around 33,000.

If one were to credit your "logic" then there would have to be approximately 10,130 House of Representative seats today.

What that would mean was that, if every Representative were to speak once (for three minutes) on a piece of legislation then it would take around 100 sitting days (that works out to 8 calendar months) to progress the legislation one step.

Because, in those days, it was considered quite normal for only "The Right People" to have any real say in government.

BTW, you do realize that, today, it is considered quite normal for only "The Right People" to have any real say in government (the only things that have changed are [1] the definition of "The Right People", and [2] the definition of "real say in government").

Congress left the 33,000 number long ago. We could still hold true to the founders plan by adjusting the bottom number. Use WY, the least populated state as the base, say 600,000 for ease of calculation. Every state with less than 1.2 million population would have 1 rep (that would increase the number of 1 rep states from 7 to 9). 435 is an artificial number created by Congress because that is the number of seats that fit in the chamber. I say get smaller chairs.

 

[soap box]

The popular vote is, at present, irrelevant. Complaining about the electoral results and basing those complaints on "Well if the rules were different then the results would have been different." is an exercise in futility.

There is absolutely no "might" about it.

Personally, no I don't. Do I think that governing strictly in accord with the dictates of the popular vote is always the right way to govern? No I don't.

Personally, I do not think that they SHOULD. If they did then it would be up to the residents of the state to decide how booming the "Hemp & Lamp post" market should be.

Do I think that election results would vary greatly if the entire electorate was informed and rational from the electoral results that would obtain if the entire electorate was as informed and rational as it currently is? No I do not.

Did you know that the relative ranking of the students in a class is (essentially) unchanged whether or not the class is given a copy of the final exam before the exam takes place?

If you want to say that talking about an amendment to the C is " complaining" then I plead guilty.

Otherwise I appreciate the answers and we mostly agree.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

So it is not proportional representation.

It is a MODIFIED proportional representation system. But, then again, if you can only think in absolute, then I guess that you think that it would be appropriate for any state with a population of less than 3,343,053 (100th of the population of the US) NOT to have any Senate seats at all. You might want to try telling that to the folks from Utah, Iowa, Nevada, Arkansas, Mississippi, Kansas, New Mexico, Nebraska, Idaho, West Virginia, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming. I suspect that you would have some "slight" difficulty in getting a constitutional amendment passed when 22 states are automatically going to vote against it.

Lower population states receive more representation proportionally than higher population states due to the inclusion of Senate rep in the EC and the distribution of House seats.

The Senate was never intended to be a "rep by pop" chamber.

Manner includes who, check the VRA of 1965.

What you appear to be talking about is

§10101. Voting rights​

(a) Race, color, or previous condition not to affect right to vote; uniform standards for voting qualifications; errors or omissions from papers; literacy tests; agreements between Attorney General and State or local authorities; definitions​

(1) All citizens of the United States who are otherwise qualified by law to vote at any election by the people in any State, Territory, district, county, city, parish, township, school district, municipality, or other territorial subdivision, shall be entitled and allowed to vote at all such elections, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; any constitution, law, custom, usage, or regulation of any State or Territory, or by or under its authority, to the contrary notwithstanding.

(2) No person acting under color of law shall—

(A) in determining whether any individual is qualified under State law or laws to vote in any election, apply any standard, practice, or procedure different from the standards, practices, or procedures applied under such law or laws to other individuals within the same county, parish, or similar political subdivision who have been found by State officials to be qualified to vote;

(B) deny the right of any individual to vote in any election because of an error or omission on any record or paper relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote in such election; or

(C) employ any literacy test as a qualification for voting in any election unless (i) such test is administered to each individual and is conducted wholly in writing, and (ii) a certified copy of the test and of the answers given by the individual is furnished to him within twenty-five days of the submission of his request made within the period of time during which records and papers are required to be retained and preserved pursuant to title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 [52 U.S.C. 20701 et seq.]: Provided, however, That the Attorney General may enter into agreements with appropriate State or local authorities that preparation, conduct, and maintenance of such tests in accordance with the provisions of applicable State or local law, including such special provisions as are necessary in the preparation, conduct, and maintenance of such tests for persons who are blind or otherwise physically handicapped, meet the purposes of this subparagraph and constitute compliance therewith.
​

Yes, "poll taxes" have been ruled to be unconstitutional, but "Property Qualifications" have NOT been ruled to be unconstitutional (and, since the Founding Fathers actually approved of them when drafting the constitution AND since they have NOT been explicitly ruled out by subsequent legislation, they are still "constitutional".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Not true? Where is the Constitutional right to abortion in the Constitution?

The Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled that the words "security of person" meant that abortion was a "right" protected by the Constitution of the United States of America.

It means that a law could be passed because it is not expressly unconstitutional,

Indeed, all laws that are passed enjoy the "presumption of constitutionality" until determined otherwise.

but it would be challenged and overturned based on a variety of SCOTUS cases.

It might be. Then again, it might not.

I'd start with Griffin v Illinois 1957 (I think).

I wouldn't. The crucial fact of Griffin v. Illinois (351 U.S. 12) was that the Appellant had to pay the state to exercise a legally permitted right.

If someone is required to possess "property or other assets with a net value in excess of $1,000,000" in order to be eligible to vote, then they do not have to pay the state anything in order to exercise their legally permitted right to vote. True, they have to actually be able to prove that they possess the requisite net worth, but they also have to prove where they live, that they are of age, and that they are US citizens in order to exercise their legally permitted right to vote.

"The importance of the Griffin case arises from the fact that for the first time the Supreme Court has addressed itself squarely to the impact of poverty on constitutional rights under the due process and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment."

I really do suggest that you learn the meaning of "legally relevant". The issue in Griffin v. Illinois was the Appellant's ability to PAY FOR something.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I actually read the Constitution of the US as much as you do, no doubt. Of course it is based on their Original Intent, or amendments thereto. That's not the point. The legislatures of every state have determined minimally that the citizens of the state WILL HAVE A VOTE in electing the Electoral College.

What the legislature grants, the legislature can take away. What the legislature takes away, the legislature can grant.

And it's not the Electoral College that I have a beef with, per sey. I think it's a good idea to have a buffer between the people and the Presidency. I just have a problem with the manner in which most states apportion their Electors - winner take all. Again, that negates the will of the minority - though it be almost the same size as the majority - in that state, and of late, negates the will of the majority in the United States.

What the Founding Fathers had as their Original Intent was that learned and substantial citizens should meet and determine, FOR THEMSELVES AND ON BEHALF OF ALL THE PEOPLE, which person was the best suited person to hold the office of President of the United States of America.

Once you junk the "FOR THEMSELVES AND ON BEHALF OF ALL THE PEOPLE" by substituting "tied votes" then you might just as well go straight to direct election because people who have to do what biased, uninformed, uneducated, and uninvolved people tell them to do are going to do exactly the same thing that those biased, uninformed, uneducated, and uninvolved people would vote to do if their direct votes were what made the decision.

And, CONTRARY to the US Constitution, I believe the Presidency should be substantially elected by the popular vote, with the Electoral College abiding by those wishes in most circumstances.

And what would the exceptions to the "most circumstances" be?

I can't think of a good reason why the will of a minority of the citizens of the USA should be represented by a President essentially appointed by a minority of the citizens, via the Electors and State Legislations.

In 2016, 54.8% of the voting aged population of the US actually bothered to vote. Mr. Trump received 46% of the popular vote. That means that Mr. Trump was elected by 25.208% of the voting aged population.

In 2020, 62.0% of the voting eligible population of the US actually bothered to vote. Mr. Biden received 51.3% of the popular vote. That means that Mr. Biden was elected by 31.806% of the eligible voters.

I simply don't have the energy to go back and do EVERY US election [feel free to do so for yourself], but I strongly suspect that there has NEVER been a US presidential election in which the winner received the votes of more than 50% of the American electorate.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Congress left the 33,000 number long ago. We could still hold true to the founders plan by adjusting the bottom number. Use WY, the least populated state as the base, say 600,000 for ease of calculation. Every state with less than 1.2 million population would have 1 rep (that would increase the number of 1 rep states from 7 to 9). 435 is an artificial number created by Congress because that is the number of seats that fit in the chamber. I say get smaller chairs.

OK, so your proposal is that the number of senate seats be increased to 580 (assuming one seat for every 576,851 [or major fraction thereof] in its population) and that the number of House of Representative seats be increased to 2,521 (in order to keep the relative sizes of the Senate and House the same as it is now) or to some other number that is an even multiple of 580 - right?

 

[mrjurrs]

It is a MODIFIED proportional representation system. But, then again, if you can only think in absolute, then I guess that you think that it would be appropriate for any state with a population of less than 3,343,053 (100th of the population of the US) NOT to have any Senate seats at all. You might want to try telling that to the folks from Utah, Iowa, Nevada, Arkansas, Mississippi, Kansas, New Mexico, Nebraska, Idaho, West Virginia, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming. I suspect that you would have some "slight" difficulty in getting a constitutional amendment passed when 22 states are automatically going to vote against it.

The Senate was never intended to be a "rep by pop" chamber.

What you appear to be talking about is

​

​

§10101. Voting rights​

​

(a) Race, color, or previous condition not to affect right to vote; uniform standards for voting qualifications; errors or omissions from papers; literacy tests; agreements between Attorney General and State or local authorities; definitions​

(1) All citizens of the United States who are otherwise qualified by law to vote at any election by the people in any State, Territory, district, county, city, parish, township, school district, municipality, or other territorial subdivision, shall be entitled and allowed to vote at all such elections, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; any constitution, law, custom, usage, or regulation of any State or Territory, or by or under its authority, to the contrary notwithstanding.​

​

(2) No person acting under color of law shall—​

​

(A) in determining whether any individual is qualified under State law or laws to vote in any election, apply any standard, practice, or procedure different from the standards, practices, or procedures applied under such law or laws to other individuals within the same county, parish, or similar political subdivision who have been found by State officials to be qualified to vote;​

​

(B) deny the right of any individual to vote in any election because of an error or omission on any record or paper relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote in such election; or​

​

(C) employ any literacy test as a qualification for voting in any election unless (i) such test is administered to each individual and is conducted wholly in writing, and (ii) a certified copy of the test and of the answers given by the individual is furnished to him within twenty-five days of the submission of his request made within the period of time during which records and papers are required to be retained and preserved pursuant to title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 [52 U.S.C. 20701 et seq.]: Provided, however, That the Attorney General may enter into agreements with appropriate State or local authorities that preparation, conduct, and maintenance of such tests in accordance with the provisions of applicable State or local law, including such special provisions as are necessary in the preparation, conduct, and maintenance of such tests for persons who are blind or otherwise physically handicapped, meet the purposes of this subparagraph and constitute compliance therewith.​

​

Yes, "poll taxes" have been ruled to be unconstitutional, but "Property Qualifications" have NOT been ruled to be unconstitutional (and, since the Founding Fathers actually approved of them when drafting the constitution AND since they have NOT been explicitly ruled out by subsequent legislation, they are still "constitutional".

I never advocated for changing Senate representation in the EC. I do say that that the 1 House rep states all are over represented in selecting the President and making laws.

Since property ownership has not been a requirement since the 1820's (with a few holdovers), I suggest that it would certainly qualify as an issue that the feds could legislate.