Well, see, here's the deal. Back when the Constitution was first written, there was massive disagreement about how the President ought to be elected. To the point of nearly wrecking the entire endeavor, in fact. Which is how we got this bizarre and twisty electoral college system, but that's beside the point. The framers explicitly did not outline in the Constitution how the President would be elected, though from the first 1796 election, popular vote was the method of choice (other possibilities include selection by electors chosen by state legislatures, and some other stuff). Of course, the voters at that point were white, propertied men, as was true in every other democratic-leaning country. The fifteenth amendment enfranchises African-Americans (women get their own amendment later), and it was the first time that the Constitution explicitly says, in unambiguous language, that the general voting public has a right to cast a ballot for President.
Now in reality, if someone came along and proposed abolishing the popular vote and throwing the Presidential into the state houses, he'd be shot on sight. However, the issue still comes up -- the majority opinion in Bush v. Gore was the first to remark in recent memory that the dominant right in elections is not necessarily the right to cast a meaningful ballot -- I'm wildly paraphrasing here, but peaceful transfer of government can potentially be more important, strict reading of the Constitution, no guarantee, blah blah blah. Which is to say it's something you can throw out when you're engaged in blatantly partisan maneuvers.
"one man, one vote" is a slogan, not a component of law (at least in the Constitution, because by now any number of general election related law and jurisprudence is on the federal and state books. It's not like the right is about to be yanked from under our feet -- at least no more than it is by general electoral hanky panky -- it's just not one of the ten holy of holies. Which most people don't know, and would be disturbed if they did.
no subject
Now in reality, if someone came along and proposed abolishing the popular vote and throwing the Presidential into the state houses, he'd be shot on sight. However, the issue still comes up -- the majority opinion in Bush v. Gore was the first to remark in recent memory that the dominant right in elections is not necessarily the right to cast a meaningful ballot -- I'm wildly paraphrasing here, but peaceful transfer of government can potentially be more important, strict reading of the Constitution, no guarantee, blah blah blah. Which is to say it's something you can throw out when you're engaged in blatantly partisan maneuvers.
"one man, one vote" is a slogan, not a component of law (at least in the Constitution, because by now any number of general election related law and jurisprudence is on the federal and state books. It's not like the right is about to be yanked from under our feet -- at least no more than it is by general electoral hanky panky -- it's just not one of the ten holy of holies. Which most people don't know, and would be disturbed if they did.
I'll stop election geeking at you now.