- Joined
- Jan 2, 2016
- Messages
- 9,517
- Reaction score
- 1,700
- Location
- prairieville, LA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
There is no law that requires them to go with the vote. Well certain states do have these laws, but they aren't enforced and if enforced, would likely be thrown out as unconstitutional. There was never a law to require the EC to vote along the state's popular vote. It's very rare that they do, and I don't believe it was ever done on large enough level to swing an election for President. But there have been cases of faithless electors going all the way back to 1796.
what are you trying to say?
Wrong. You just do not like the why he resigned and that it was made public. FYI, once he resigned it no longer his JOB and now someone with different ideals can vote as it was going to be voted anyway, just without that one electors name attached. I applaud people for standing by their principles even if they have to leave a job to stand by them, I see you think otherwise.The elector abandoned his responsibility. Life doesn't always make things the way we like. The best approach is to move forward and do something, not hide from reality.
Wrong. You just do not like the why he resigned and that it was made public. FYI, once he resigned it no longer his JOB and now someone with different ideals can vote as it was going to be voted anyway, just without that one electors name attached. I applaud people for standing by their principles even if they have to leave a job to stand by them, I see you think otherwise.
That is interesting. I wasn't aware. I always thought the electoral college was a ceremonial thing. All I can say is that if we want to have Americans lose faith completely in the election system, all we have to do is have the electors throw the election. I see you are from Colorado. I went to college in Colorado. Love the place.
Actually Opinions can be wrong and often are.
actually we are not a democracy. and the EC did exactly what it was designed to do.
No we are a represented republic.
yes you are confused by the rhetoric and false information.
Really? Because the EC was designed to accomodate 13 states.
The EC has nothing to do with that. We already elect officials that represent us for our representative democracy. Electing someone directly doesn't make us a direct democracy. We elect them to represent us.
more of a clue than the person that started this thread.
there have only been a handful of faithless electors and none of them have overturned an election.
even if they were to try the house does not have to accept their vote. right now the house vote
on acceptance has been more ceremony than anything else.
however if the EC would try to do this there are methods in place to prevent them from doing it.
the odds of them upending the election is slim to none.
nope because it doesn't accommodate 13 states it accommodates 50 states
actually it does. the point of the EC is to ensure the broadest support among all states for a candidate.
not to allow 2 or 3 states to determine the election like a popular vote.
Not very well. Representation is supposed to reflect those it represents don't you think?
Yup, the whole Republic, not just the major cities. It's one of the reasons we have the EC in the first place.
The house is to represent everyone from everywhere. The senate is to represent the state.
The house is to represent everyone from everywhere. The senate is to represent the state.
The reason we have an EC in the first place is because when it was created, the vast majority of the population couldn't read and someone running for president couldn't campaign in an election season on horseback from New York to Georgia.
And the President represents both, the full of the Republic. The EC exists, in part, to make sure that the lesser populated states are not overlooked entirely.
It has the opposite effect. Now smaller states are completely ignored and the big states are the EC prize and are all that is campaigned in. And everyone in all those other states, their votes pretty much don't matter. Without the EC, every vote counts and matters.
No. Illiteracy and campaign difficulties were not mentioned during the debates over the Electoral system at the Constitutional Convention. And all of the Federalist Papers on the point argued varying types of mischief and abuse of power which the EC system would head off.
Apparently not, Hillary lost because she didn't play to the middle states. So despite having the popular vote, she couldn't get the EC votes because she couldn't appeal to some of those smaller states.
Without the EC, it's just the Cities that matter.
She lost because she lost three of the only handful of states that presidents campaign in. Ohio, Michigan and Pennsyvlania. The vast majority of the rest of the states don't matter with the EC.
It was to elect supposed smarter people to make decisions for the less intellegent masses. So yes, it was argued.
Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.
link...
And as far as campaign difficulties... I'll let William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director FEC National Clearinghouse on Election Administration explain it:
In order to appreciate the reasons for the Electoral College, it is essential to understand its historical context and the problem that the Founding Fathers were trying to solve. They faced the difficult question of how to elect a president in a nation that:
- was composed of thirteen large and small States jealous of their own rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government
- contained only 4,000,000 people spread up and down a thousand miles of Atlantic seaboard barely connected by transportation or communication (so that national campaigns were impractical even if they had been thought desirable)
- believed, under the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry St. John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not downright evil, and
- felt that gentlemen should not campaign for public office (The saying was "The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office.").
More at the link...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?