Hillary Clinton could have legal right to challenge electoral college system

[The Sushi Bandit]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/hillary-clinton-right-to-be-president-george-bush-al-gore-donald-trump-law-professor-a7457046.html

Legal expert says Ms Clinton could have grounds to challenge 'unconstitutional' electoral college system and claim win, as she takes 2.6 million lead in popular vote.

[Amishman]

1. The electoral college is part of the Constitution, it is by definition Constitutional

It's right there in article 2.

Until we pass an amendment, it is something we are stuck with

[Coyotl]

4. Other parts of the Constitution can override the Electoral College. Equal justice.

[Jim Lane]

5. Presumably the argument is that the Electoral College violates the Equal Protection Clause

Something that's "right there in" the Constitution as drafted in 1787 can be changed when we pass an amendment, as you recognize. It's not completely ludicrous to say that the Electoral College is inconsistent with the principles of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The biggest problem for this argument is a longstanding principle of construction: Repeals by implication are not favored. Particularly with something as momentous as the election of the President, it's too much of a stretch to read the fairly general language of the Fourteenth Amendment as impliedly repealing the specific procedures set forth in Article II.

[HassleCat]

2. Maine and Nebraska

Proportional representation vs. winner take all. The court's would be hesitant to open that can of worms because it might open things up for minority parties and coalition governments.

[Grey Lemercier]

7. you are conflating assigning EV's per congressional district with actual proportional representation

The US uses a Plurality/Majoritarian system, specifically First Past the Post. The person who gets the most votes wins that district. If EV's were allocated via each district, you still wouldn't have minor parties affecting the EV's. Positions in the House are allocated now via single member districts and there are NO 3rd parties represented in the House.

[HassleCat]

9. That's the way it is now.

But the court's might start chipping away at the system, beginning with the way th EC is apportioned. If they decide to do it according to district, rather than by a state aggregate, the presidential election process would change, with different campaign strategies, etc. What might follow from that? An end to single member districts in some states? Sounds impossible, but we could experience some odd things in the next four years.

[red dog 1]

3. K&R

Too bad Hillary Clinton hasn't already challenged the election, based on the Bush v Gore decision, as Lawrence Lessig writes.

Lessig sums up the Clinton campaign's lack of any post-election legal action well:
"It's striking to see how committed they are to allowing this train wreck to occur."

[Crunchy Frog]

6. Maybe she could, but she won't. I'd just about stake my life on it.

That encapsulates one of her major failings as a candidate, as well as the overall failings of the Democratic establishment, who have sat back and watched this situation develop without doing a thing to try to stop it.

[dmosh42]

8. She's not even challenging the Michigan vote totals, which by accounts reported had a huge amount...

of voting machines located in Detroit which did not function properly. And nobody knew about it before
election day? Bullshit!

[sarisataka]

10. Please someone actually read

The Constitution.

The Electoral College is not unconstitutional because it is in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment will not apply because the people do not have the right to vote for the electors in the Constitution. The allocation of electors is clearly designated to the states.

The popular election is an amalgamation of the laws of 50 different states. Constitutionally there is no requirement to allow the people to vote for President. The argument that if one state allows their people to vote all must do the same also fails. If that were the case then every state would have to have absolutely identical laws, equal tax rates, equal speed limits Etc to ensure equal protection.