Andrewwhyte 1 #126 November 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteI seem to recall the method of choosing senators was changed one state at a time. [Lesson] Bzzzzt! It hapened in one fell swoop. Originally, under Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution, each state's Senators were chosen by that state's Legislature. Then the 17th Amendment was passed, which mandated that Senators be elected by popular vote of the state's citizens. [/Lesson] Ok, I think the Oregon legislature chose to appoint the senators that were elected before the amendment was passed. But there is nothing in the Constitution demanding a first past the post system for the house. If I read it correctly any state could go to multi member constituencies, state wide PR, single transferable ballot, or any one of a number of selection methods. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #127 December 1, 2007 Quote I'm talking about a three-party election where no candidate polls a majority. We've certain had strong 3d party candidates from time to time in our history: Perot, Wallace, Thurmond, etc. We've been fortunate that no such candidate has yet split the EC forcing the race into the House. But given that we seem to produce strong 3d party candidates with some regularity, I think it is only a matter of time before the scenario I describe happens. Perot was really just entertainment, but yeah, I can see a scenario in the current state where this could happen. If a favorite son candidate like Bloomberg ran as an independent and got one state, while the rest of the states ran to a near dead heat as in 2000, it could happen. It's much more likely, however, that the two party candidates will court the third for those electoral votes and he will tell them how to vote. Unless he prefers the side of the majority - then he'll tell his people to stay the course, because if this scenario happened, the process to change the rules would be put in motion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
