Yes, however I don't think they teach American government in schools anymore.
The ignorace is pervasive. Even established senators don't seem to understand the Consititution either --- some of them actually think they have a say-so over the Attorney General, when, in fact, they have none, and for a very good reason.
2007-06-11 15:06:25
·
answer #1
·
answered by Boomer Wisdom 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Anyone with a modicum of political sophistication knows that.
However, the Constitution doesn't DENY us the right to vote for president either. If that were the case, the president would be chosen by state legislators or federal/state judges, or we would have a hereditary monarchy. (If we have another Clinton or Bush presidency, we could be heading in that direction.)
While state legislators have the constitutional right to choose presidential electors by means other than popular vote, it probably wouldn't happen. Why? Because the state legislators themselves are chosen by popular vote. So the electors will continue to be chosen by popular vote in every state... unless the people rise up and demand that their rights be taken from them.
It's not like that hasn't happened before. Remember the survey from a while back, where a majority of high school students said newspapers shouldn't be allowed to publish stories not approved by the government?
2007-06-11 22:24:34
·
answer #2
·
answered by MoeTheBartender 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yes, what is the problem with that? The United States is a union of fifty individual states, thus the states should choose the chief executive. The voice of the people is the legislative branch or Congress.
The founding fathers were pretty smart guys. They realized that the public majority could be fickle and easily swayed. Having a President elected solely on popular vote could easily disenfranchise smaller minorities, mostly less populated states. A candidate who is extremely popular in New York, California, and Texas yet moderately unpopular throughout the rest of the country could easily win in popular vote, yet would not represent the views of the majority of states.
2007-06-11 22:10:56
·
answer #3
·
answered by msi_cord 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, that is so. An elector is supposed to cast the vote according to the state's election results, but there is no law requiring that they must vote accordingly. There have been a few instances where this happened but rarely.
Now why would the Founding Fathers have done this?
2007-06-11 21:53:41
·
answer #4
·
answered by flushles 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
Yes, I knew that. However, I think that if a state legislature used any other method of choosing electors, They would face instant recall or worse.
2007-06-11 21:56:22
·
answer #5
·
answered by yupchagee 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
I found that out when the voteing papers disappeared and george bush got elected again.. It makes me not want to vote anymore ; but i still do and hope all the votes count ; not like what happened in florida. george;s brothers state,.,
2007-06-11 22:03:51
·
answer #6
·
answered by Cami lives 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Your right to vote is actually a privlidge, and it WILL be revoked if:
you are a felon
you have a dishonorable discharge from the service.
2007-06-11 21:52:23
·
answer #7
·
answered by alot of nadda 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
Hmm...yeah, and why are you bringing this up now? It's a little bit arcane. Can we talk about this some other time?
2007-06-11 21:50:24
·
answer #8
·
answered by skip742 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yep, I knew it. Election 2000 was a big education about matters like that.
2007-06-11 21:52:25
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
Your almost democratic
2007-06-11 21:50:47
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋