|
ear Sir/Madam,
I would like to make some proposals regarding a possible election law
reform based upon the principles of the U.S. Constitution's Fifth
Amendment.
Also, I am very concerned to hear your opinion on the way the United
States is currently handling their Presidential elections. For that, I
have prepared a survey which I would like to bring to your attention.
Please respond as quickly as possible; the aggregated results of the
survey will be sent by e-mail to everyone who would like to receive
them.
If you are interested in supporting me in order to organize a lawsuit
that could result in the abolition of the Electoral College, please
feel free to contribute via PayPal for this good cause. (E-mail:
owitt@gmx.net)
Thanks a lot for your efforts!
Regards,
Oliver Witt
SURVEY
1) Which state do you live in?
->
2) Which candidates are you currently planning to vote for in the
upcoming 2004 presidential elections?
(_) Kerry/Edwards (Democratic)
(_) Bush/Cheney (Republican)
(_) Nader (Independent)
(_) Other (please specify party name) ->
(_) nobody
(_) not sure
3) Here is a brief summary of the current election law which can be
found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution:
In presidential elections, the U.S. election code works as follows:
Each state gets as many electoral votes as they have seats in the
House of Representatives AND the Senate, although this is not in
proportion to the number of inhabitants within the state.
For instance, Wyoming has 493,782 inhabitants and 3 electoral
votes, which comes down to 164,594 inhabitants per electoral vote.
California on the other hand has 33,871,648 inhabitants and 55
electoral votes, which is 615,848 inhabitants per electoral vote. This
means that a voter in Wyoming has (615,848/164,594) 3.74 times the
power than a Californian resident to change the outcome of the
presidential election, or that a Californian vote weighs only 26.7% of
a vote from a Wyoming resident.
Please rate your plain understanding of that text above.
(_) I have fully understood the author's point
(_) I have some problems with the text, but seem to have gotten the
main idea.
(_) The line of reasoning is hard to comprehend, and I just don't seem
to get it.
4) Were you previously aware of the fact that a vote from a smaller
state, like Wyoming, weighs nearly four times as much as a vote from
California?
(_) I was completely aware of that
(_) I knew that this inequality was one problem that comes with the
Electoral College, but I never thought of it as being that severe
(_) I always thought that every vote has the same weight throughout
the U.S.
5) Do you think of that situation as a problem?
(_) Yes
(_) No
6) Here are three different arguments regarding the possible
unconstitutionality of the current election law because of the Fifth
Amendment:
a)
The Constitution's Fifth Amendment clearly states that "[n]o person
shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law".
But at the age of 18, you earn and from now on POSSESS the right to
vote, which can be considered immaterial property. Also, I would like
to bring to your attention a 1937 Supreme Court decision, which says
that "due process" means that "discrimination, if gross enough, is
equivalent to confiscation and subject under the Fifth Amendment to
challenge and annulment." (Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548,
585 (1937))
In this decision, "substantive due process" has been interpreted as
placing limitations on laws and legal proceedings in order to
guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. But one has to
admit that the current U.S. election code fails to comply, since it
gives a California resident only about one fourth of the power than a
Wyoming resident to influence the election outcome.
Therefore, we assume that our forefathers wanted us to provide
equal justice and protection in presidential elections for all
residents, and that we have to rely on the popular vote for electing
the next president of the United States.
Do you think this is a good argument? Please rate it on a scale from 1
to 7 (1: horrible, 7: terrific): (_)
b)
The Constitution's Fifth Amendment clearly states that "[n]o person
shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law".
In my opinion, the liberty for a citizen to freely move throughout
the U.S. is diminished, since somebody interested in making his or her
vote count to the fullest needs to move to Wyoming, which can be
considered discrimination based on the state you live in.
As I do not see the point of being treated like a criminal for whom
the government sees the need of relocating, I would like to bring to
your attention a 1937 Supreme Court decision, which says that "due
process" means that "discrimination, if gross enough, is equivalent to
confiscation and subject under the Fifth Amendment to challenge and
annulment." (Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 585 (1937))
In this decision, "substantive due process" has been interpreted as
placing limitations on laws and legal proceedings in order to
guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. Therefore, I
assume that our forefathers wanted us to provide equal justice and
protection in presidential elections for all residents, and that we
have to rely on the popular vote for electing the next president of
the United States.
Do you think this is a good argument? Please rate it on a scale from 1
to 7 (1: horrible, 7: terrific): (_)
c)
The Constitution's Fifth Amendment clearly states that "[n]o person
shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law".
In my opinion, the whole concept of elections can be seen as a
collection of intellectual property from the people of the United
States only measured by the government; intellectual property that is
part of the national archives, the national heritage, and that derives
from every individual's brain, which again is the property of every
human being. And without a doubt, the property from the people of
California is diminished compared to the property from the people of
Wyoming and all the other 48 states.
Also, I would like to bring to your attention a 1937 Supreme Court
decision, which says that "due process" means that "discrimination, if
gross enough, is equivalent to confiscation and subject under the
Fifth Amendment to challenge and annulment." (Steward Machine Co. v.
Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 585 (1937))
In this decision, "substantive due process" has been interpreted as
placing limitations on laws and legal proceedings in order to
guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. But one has to
admit that the current U.S. election code fails to comply, since it
gives a California resident only about one fourth of the power than a
Wyoming resident to influence the election outcome.
Therefore, we assume that our forefathers wanted us to provide
equal justice and protection in presidential elections for all
residents, and that we have to rely on the popular vote for electing
the next president of the United States.
Do you think this is a good argument? Please rate it on a scale from 1
to 7 (1: horrible, 7: terrific): (_)
7) Please think of yourself for a minute as a judge or somebody on
|
| |
| |
|
