Can you cite this analysis? At first blush, it seems like no one's right "to vote" was denied, and those votes were counted in the national popular vote total that the state relied on.

@AzorAhai--hehim - If the majority vote one way for electors and the state changes that choice based on the national popular vote, it may be argued that the "right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States" was "in [some] way abridged".

@AzorAhai--hehim The specific intent of this section of the amendment was to prevent the returning Confederate states from using any method of selecting electors and representatives that evaded the votes of freedmen. Had a southern state let the freedmen vote to select 1 elector and then let Jefferson Davis personally pick the other electors, they could not have defended that by arguing, "Well, technically, we let you vote, and those votes did count."

If this anslysis were true then it would equally apply to the all-or-nothing way electors are chosen within states. Having your vote discarded within the state is surely no different.

@Jontia - In addition to applying to all-or-nothing, first-past-the-post and one-person-one-vote may be seen as "in [some] way abridg[ing]" "the right to vote in any election for the choice of [the others listed]". See Apportionment Clause for additional information. In Saunders v. Wilkins, the court, in dismissing the case, found that enforcement under § 2 is political, not judicial, unfortunately.

In McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892), the Supreme Court wrote "The second clause of Article II of the Constitution was not amended by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and they do not limit the power of appointment to the particular manner pursued at the time of the adoption..." That seems to directly contradict your assumption that the Fourteenth Amendment affects the selection of electors.

How is it 100% of voters are "disenfranchised" by sending electors by the NPV? Those who voted for that candidate didn't have had their vote abridged. I'd expect it to be at most the excess votes from the state (or district) popular vote who had votes abridged

@Caleth - Because the votes of the state's voters no longer determine the outcome. It's worth noting that the NPV compact, if enacted in 1870, would have had the direct impacts of making the votes of freed slaves irrelevant in any given state and making the elector selection dependent on the votes of the white national majority. That's exactly the kind of chicanery the amendment is designed to prevent.

@JustMe - That's an awesome cite find, thank you. But that decision relied on the principle of 'contemporaneous and continuous subsequent practical construction' to allow Michigan's election system to stand. It would be hard to apply that principle to a radical and novel method of elector selection with a nexus deliberately set outside the votes of the state's citizens.

@tbrookside The US Constitution provides no right for anyone to vote for President, as electors are appointed "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct". In McPherson v. Blacker, the US Supreme Court stated that was "not amended by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments". Not only that, the court held that power to be plenary, meaning it's not subject to review by any court or other entity. That's one of the reasons Gore's Florida recounts in 2000 got stopped - they were not per the laws from the Florida legislature.

IANAL, and I have enough trouble interpreting legal jargon from today, nevermind the 130-year-old legal jargon in McPherson v. Blacker, but I don't see any Constitutional bar that prevents any state legislature from appointing a state's electors in any manner they want. Many states held no popular vote at all, with the state government directly appointing electors. A state's legislature is free to appoint electors for Mickey Mouse should they so desire and the only recourse would be for the populace to vote them out of office the earliest chance possible (some states do have recalls).

If this analysis is correct, how is women's suffrage constitutional? It effectively halves the political power of men, and there have been plenty of instances of elections being "stolen" from males, 21 and over, by these new female voters. After decades of women's suffrage being accepted, I don't think you can seriously argue that this amendment should be understood as banning state legislatures from giving votes to people who reasonably should have a vote, just because it in some sense abridges the right to vote of male inhabitants of the state, 21 and older.

"Had a southern state let the freedmen vote to select 1 elector and then let Jefferson Davis personally pick the other electors..." It's much less reasonable to argue that Jefferson Davis should personally get the equivalent of millions of votes, than to argue that non-inhabitants should also each get one vote. The latter is unusual, but not nearly as absurd as the former.

@FrederikVds The 19th Amendment has the effect of amending this section to include women; the 26th Amendment has the effect of amending it to lower the stated age to 21.

@JustMe The existence of the Voting Rights Act, and the significant number of federal court cases concerning discrimination in federal elections, would seem to say otherwise. A number of states spent decades with their federal election processes effectively under federal court control.

@JustMe McPherson would seem like a vulnerable precedent, based on its claim that the 14th and 15th amendments in no way amended the power of state legislatures to set election terms, since the plain text of both does just that and virtually nothing else. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment has no function other than to limit the power of the state legislatures to set any election terms they choose.

@tbrookside Representatives and Senators are elected in state elections per the Constitution (17th Amendment for Senators). Presidential Electors are literally chosen "as the Legislature ... may direct". Portions of Bush v. Gore affirmed that state legislatures are acting under a direct grant of power from the US Constitution in that role, and that role is not subject to review by any body. IMO the Voting Rights Act et al should not be able to override a direct grant of plenary power from Article II p2, and can't create a right to vote by themselves in contradiction of Article II p2.

@tbrookside The 19th Amendment made it unconstitutional not to have women's suffrage, but that doesn't mean women's suffrage itself was unconstitutional before its adoption. It was left to the states, and a lot of states already had women's suffrage by the time the 19th Amendment was passed. If millions of men, living in states with women's suffrage, were denied their constitutional right to have an "undiluted" vote according to the 14th Amendment, it's strange that none of them tried to sue their state about it. It's clear that nobody shared your opinion about the 14th Amendment's meaning.

If you were correct, no state should be able to use first-past-the-post. But some do.