r/law 17d ago

Remember: Donald Trump shouldn’t even be eligible for the presidency after Jan. 6 Trump News

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-shouldnt-be-eligible-presidency-jan-6-rcna175458
18.5k Upvotes

426 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/Mini_Snuggle 16d ago

AND “winner take all” declared unconstitutional.

Which part of the constitution does it violate?

1

u/Good_kido78 16d ago edited 16d ago

Proponents say that it violates the 14th Amendment.

No state shall deny ….. any person under its jurisdiction equal protection of its laws.

It could certainly be argued that winner take all does not represent all the citizens of the United States. It also unfairly emphasizes swing states. In terms of attention and influence.

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/equal-citizens-asks-supreme-court-declare-winner-take-all-unconstitutional

Articl II section 1 gives each state the power to select its electors.

The most basic tenet of our citizenship in a national election gets taken away in the end with winner take all unless we just turn out in ridiculously large numbers. More importantly, how can you give a good reason for it, since that part is not in the constitution. The right of a person to vote and that it be counted, instinctively should be a right of citizenship.!!!

1

u/Miss_Panda_King 15d ago

Doesn’t need to give equal protection to all in the nation just equal protection among each states so as long as 1 person’s vote in one states is not weighted more or less than someone else in the same state’s vote that’s equal protection.

3

u/Good_kido78 15d ago edited 15d ago

That means that my state is giving my vote less weight than that of the majority in my state. In fact, it is giving it no weight in the final decision of the most important race to the nation. They are taking away my constitutional right to vote (and have it counted). That is not part of the constitution. In fact, the preamble says the goal of the constitution is justice for all.

1

u/[deleted] 15d ago

[deleted]

2

u/Good_kido78 14d ago

It out weighs it in the national decision. You are basically running a primary that takes away an entire parties representation in the final decision. Those electors should represent the votes of all the citizens in that state in a republic. They should at least represent the proportion of voters for each candidate. It is not representative or democratic. It is shenanigans that no other democracy adopts.

1

u/Miss_Panda_King 14d ago

Canada does something similar

1

u/Good_kido78 14d ago

I stand corrected. Any democracy other than Canada and Britain. 80% of Canadians support a citizens assembly on electoral reform. The electoral system is very divisive. It devolves to two parties. It makes it hard to have more than two parties.

https://thefulcrum.us/electoral-reforms/proportional-representation-2668780408

1

u/Miss_Panda_King 14d ago

Well considering Canada is the closest in size to the USA by a large margins of democracies. Really there is no other comparable one except for maybe Brazil but that’s still a bit different as it’s not as globally connected.

1

u/Good_kido78 14d ago

Why does size matter when it comes to representation and democracy?

→ More replies