Suppose the Electoral College in Dec Works as the Founders Intended

[Flopper]

As we all know, it's delegates to the Electoral College that chose the president, not the voters. The founders intended that states sent delegates to Washington to chose a president. The constitution leaves the method of selection of delegates to the states. All states have setup their election laws so voters aren't really voting for the candidate but for a delegate chosen to select the president. State laws differ but the selected delegates are almost always well respected members of the winning candidate's party, delegates that will faithfully carry out the wish of the voters. Basically they are the party establishment often delegates to the convention, state party leaders, and previous office holders.

Now suppose Trump wins the general election by a narrow margin and we have some faithless electors who refuse to vote for him throwing the vote to Clinton. Only about half of of our states have faithless elector laws to punish and/or replace them. I don't see how the Supreme Court could do anything. Even if they did, what could they do? Once the electors vote, what can the states do?

 

[Wyatt earp]

As we all know, it's delegates to the Electoral College that chose the president, not the voters. The founders intended that states sent delegates to Washington to chose a president. The constitution leaves the method of selection of delegates to the states. All states have setup their election laws so voters aren't really voting for the candidate but for a delegate chosen to select the president. State laws differ but the selected delegates are almost always well respected members of the winning candidate's party, delegates that will faithfully carry out the wish of the voters. Basically they are the party establishment often delegates to the convention, state party leaders, and previous office holders.

Now suppose Trump wins the general election by a narrow margin and we have some faithless electors who refuse to vote for him throwing the vote to Clinton. Only about half of of our states have faithless elector laws to punish and/or replace them. I don't see how the Supreme Court could do anything. Even if they did, what could they do? Once the electors vote, what can the states do?

I wouldn't want to be an electorate that does that, they probably wouldn't live till 2017.

Nothing the Damn SC could do, that's the way it is setup and electors in the past didn't go along with the vote.

 

[Pogo]

I wouldn't want to be an electorate that does that, they probably wouldn't live till 2017.

You're saying Rump would kill tens of millions of people?

Or did you mean he'd kill electors?

Should he "take out their families" too?

 

[Missourian]

I wouldn't want to be an electorate that does that, they probably wouldn't live till 2017.

You're saying Rump would kill tens of millions of people?

Or did you mean he'd kill electors?

Should he "take out their families" too?

I think he means the electorate that democratically voted and sent him as their representative wouldn't exactly be thrilled to see him return home again.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I wouldn't want to be an electorate that does that, they probably wouldn't live till 2017.

You're saying Rump would kill tens of millions of people?

Or did you mean he'd kill electors?

Should he "take out their families" too?

I wonder how it must feel to live in your world just for one day of rainbows and Unicorn farts?

 

[Flopper]

If it every happened, t

As we all know, it's delegates to the Electoral College that chose the president, not the voters. The founders intended that states sent delegates to Washington to chose a president. The constitution leaves the method of selection of delegates to the states. All states have setup their election laws so voters aren't really voting for the candidate but for a delegate chosen to select the president. State laws differ but the selected delegates are almost always well respected members of the winning candidate's party, delegates that will faithfully carry out the wish of the voters. Basically they are the party establishment often delegates to the convention, state party leaders, and previous office holders.

Now suppose Trump wins the general election by a narrow margin and we have some faithless electors who refuse to vote for him throwing the vote to Clinton. Only about half of of our states have faithless elector laws to punish and/or replace them. I don't see how the Supreme Court could do anything. Even if they did, what could they do? Once the electors vote, what can the states do?

I wouldn't want to be an electorate that does that, they probably wouldn't live till 2017.

Nothing the Damn SC could do, that's the way it is setup and electors in the past didn't go along with the vote.

If it ever happened, I think we can kiss the electoral college goodbye.

 

[Pogo]

I wouldn't want to be an electorate that does that, they probably wouldn't live till 2017.

You're saying Rump would kill tens of millions of people?

Or did you mean he'd kill electors?

Should he "take out their families" too?

I wonder how it must feel to live in your world just for one day of rainbows and Unicorn farts?

Interesting answer. Death threat somehow morphs into unicorns.
What does the phrase "wouldn't live" mean to you kids in the "special" class?

 

[Flopper]

I wouldn't want to be an electorate that does that, they probably wouldn't live till 2017.

You're saying Rump would kill tens of millions of people?

Or did you mean he'd kill electors?

Should he "take out their families" too?

I wonder how it must feel to live in your world just for one day of rainbows and Unicorn farts?

Faithless electors are far more common than you might think,

2000 election: Washington, D.C. Elector Barbara Lett-Simmons, pledged for Democrats Al Gore and Joe Lieberman, cast no electoral votes as a protest of Washington D.C.'s lack of congressional representation.

1988 election: West Virginia Elector Margarette Leach, pledged for Democrats Michael Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen, but as a form of protest against the winner-take-all custom of the Electoral College, instead cast her votes for the candidates in the reverse of their positions on the national ticket; her presidential vote went to Bentsen and her vice presidential vote to Dukakis.

1976 election: Washington Elector Mike Padden, pledged for Republicans Gerald Ford and Bob Dole, cast his presidential electoral vote for Ronald Reagan, who had challenged Ford for the Republican nomination. He cast his vice presidential vote, as pledged, for Dole.

1972 election: Virginia Elector Roger MacBride, pledged for Republicans Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, cast his electoral votes forLibertarian candidates John Hospers and Theodora Nathan. MacBride's vote for Nathan was the first electoral vote cast for a woman in U.S. history. MacBride became the Libertarian candidate for President in the 1976 election.

1968 election: North Carolina Elector Lloyd W. Bailey, pledged for Republicans Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, cast his votes forAmerican Independent Party candidates George Wallace and Curtis LeMay.

1960 election: Oklahoma Elector Henry D. Irwin, pledged for Republicans Richard Nixon and Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., cast his presidential electoral vote for Democratic non-candidate Harry Flood Byrd and his vice presidential electoral vote for Republican Barry Goldwater. (Fourteen unpledged electors also voted for Byrd for president, but supported Strom Thurmond, then a Democrat, for vice president.)

1956 election: Alabama Elector W. F. Turner, pledged for Democrats Adlai Stevenson and Estes Kefauver, cast his votes for Walter Burgwyn Jones and Herman Talmadge.

1948 election: Two Tennessee electors were on both the Democratic Party and the States' Rights Democratic Party slates. When the Democratic Party slate won, one of these electors voted for the Democratic nominees Harry Truman and Alben Barkley. The other, Preston Parks, cast his votes for States' Rights Democratic Party candidates Strom Thurmond and Fielding Wright, making him a faithless elector.

1912 election: Republican vice presidential candidate James S. Sherman died before the election. Eight Republican electors had pledged their votes to him but voted for Nicholas Murray Butler instead.

Faithless elector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JakeStarkey]

The electors will follow the vote in their states, even if it is the Donald who wins the vote.

 

[mvymvy]

The electors are and will be dedicated party activist supporters of the winning party’s candidate.

Each state’s winning presidential electors travel to their State Capitol on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges for President and Vice President.

1796 remains the only instance when a "faithless" elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the "canvas") in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." They list the electors and the number of votes cast for each. The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes reported in the Certificates of Ascertainment. You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site

 

[Flopper]

The electors are and will be dedicated party activist supporters of the winning party’s candidate.

Each state’s winning presidential electors travel to their State Capitol on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges for President and Vice President.

1796 remains the only instance when a "faithless" elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the "canvas") in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." They list the electors and the number of votes cast for each. The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes reported in the Certificates of Ascertainment. You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site

We have had about 12 faithless electors over the last 75 years who have not followed the wishes of the voters by refusing to vote or voting against the winning the candidate in their state. It affected the electoral vote but because of the size of the margin of victory, it did not effect the outcome of the election. Someday it probably will.

This election is just a bit different from previous elections. The republican establishment is doing everything they can to block Trump. The party establishment is usually chosen as electors as they are seen as being the most reliable party members to carry out the will of the people and vote for their nominee. Now it's not likely that these people will break ranks with tradition and their pledge but it has happened before and in this badly fractured republican party it could certainly happen again.

As far as the federal courts are concerned, faithless electors are a state problem. The constitution allows electors to vote for whoever they choose. In fact, that is exactly what the framers had in mind when they created the Electoral College. An election in which the people democratically selected a president was horrifying to them. That's why we have an electoral college so electors can chose the president.
.

 

[hazlnut]

As we all know, it's delegates to the Electoral College that chose the president, not the voters. The founders intended that states sent delegates to Washington to chose a president. The constitution leaves the method of selection of delegates to the states. All states have setup their election laws so voters aren't really voting for the candidate but for a delegate chosen to select the president. State laws differ but the selected delegates are almost always well respected members of the winning candidate's party, delegates that will faithfully carry out the wish of the voters. Basically they are the party establishment often delegates to the convention, state party leaders, and previous office holders.

Now suppose Trump wins the general election by a narrow margin and we have some faithless electors who refuse to vote for him throwing the vote to Clinton. Only about half of of our states have faithless elector laws to punish and/or replace them. I don't see how the Supreme Court could do anything. Even if they did, what could they do? Once the electors vote, what can the states do?

Trump won't win national.

35% of 50% won't cut it.

 

[Flopper]

As we all know, it's delegates to the Electoral College that chose the president, not the voters. The founders intended that states sent delegates to Washington to chose a president. The constitution leaves the method of selection of delegates to the states. All states have setup their election laws so voters aren't really voting for the candidate but for a delegate chosen to select the president. State laws differ but the selected delegates are almost always well respected members of the winning candidate's party, delegates that will faithfully carry out the wish of the voters. Basically they are the party establishment often delegates to the convention, state party leaders, and previous office holders.

Now suppose Trump wins the general election by a narrow margin and we have some faithless electors who refuse to vote for him throwing the vote to Clinton. Only about half of of our states have faithless elector laws to punish and/or replace them. I don't see how the Supreme Court could do anything. Even if they did, what could they do? Once the electors vote, what can the states do?

I wouldn't want to be an electorate that does that, they probably wouldn't live till 2017.

Nothing the Damn SC could do, that's the way it is setup and electors in the past didn't go along with the vote.

If an elector broke his pledge he or she would become a party outcast. In about 25 states they would be subject to criminal charges, usually fines. What is unusually in this election is that the republican establish which would makeup most of the electors are the very ones most likely to break their pledge.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

The Electoral College is part of how the system works. If the Electors meet and they decide not to support the winner, then so be it. They'll incur whatever penalty their state may or may not have for them, but at the end of the day that actually is their job. They are supposed to act as a final check on the voters to ensure that a populist demagogue (something the Founders were absolutely terrified of) can't come to power.

That said, Congress does verify the Elector's result. They could refuse to verify, thereby triggering the Constitutional mechanism for how to deal with no clear winner. By the way, I was always puzzled option wasn't invoked in Bush v. Gore. Letting that go to the Supreme Court set a very dangerous precedent.

 

[candycorn]

The electors will follow the vote in their states, even if it is the Donald who wins the vote.

So, lets turn it around. It won’t happen but lets say that HRC’s slot machine server actually spits out an e-mail showing that she was telling a Chinese official a state secret in return for a hefty continued donation to the CGI. Its an open and shut case. When asked by the media, she takes the 5th.

And it comes down on the Tuesday before Thanksgiving. After the people have voted and after she had won.

You don’t think some electors would have a good reason not to vote for her?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

The electors will follow the vote in their states, even if it is the Donald who wins the vote.

So, lets turn it around. It won’t happen but lets say that HRC’s slot machine server actually spits out an e-mail showing that she was telling a Chinese official a state secret in return for a hefty continued donation to the CGI. Its an open and shut case. When asked by the media, she takes the 5th.

And it comes down on the Tuesday before Thanksgiving. After the people have voted and after she had won.

You don’t think some electors would have a good reason not to vote for her?

I think that should a revelation on that magnitude come out about any candidate, the Electors would have the right to exercise their Constitutional responsibility and vote against the winner of the popular election. Their job to act as that last check on the process.

 

[candycorn]

As we all know, it's delegates to the Electoral College that chose the president, not the voters. The founders intended that states sent delegates to Washington to chose a president. The constitution leaves the method of selection of delegates to the states. All states have setup their election laws so voters aren't really voting for the candidate but for a delegate chosen to select the president. State laws differ but the selected delegates are almost always well respected members of the winning candidate's party, delegates that will faithfully carry out the wish of the voters. Basically they are the party establishment often delegates to the convention, state party leaders, and previous office holders.

Now suppose Trump wins the general election by a narrow margin and we have some faithless electors who refuse to vote for him throwing the vote to Clinton. Only about half of of our states have faithless elector laws to punish and/or replace them. I don't see how the Supreme Court could do anything. Even if they did, what could they do? Once the electors vote, what can the states do?

I wouldn't want to be an electorate that does that, they probably wouldn't live till 2017.

Nothing the Damn SC could do, that's the way it is setup and electors in the past didn't go along with the vote.

If an elector broke his pledge he or she would become a party outcast. In about 25 states they would be subject to criminal charges, usually fines. What is unusually in this election is that the republican establish which would makeup most of the electors are the very ones most likely to break their pledge.

Flops, nobody loves your commentary more than I.

But what good is it being a member of a party that is coming apart? That no longer shares your world view? And if you’re in your mid 70’s or have serious health issues that are undisclosed and you’ll be dead in a few years anyway (not saying I am hoping for it but it happens)….why not do your bit for the Nation?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Several alternatives exist.

One, as candy has said, the electors could reject HRC's election. That, I do not think, would happen,

Two, the President could pardon her for all crimes known and unknown to the date of the pardon.

Three, provided one and two did not happen, the lame duck GOP Senate could try her as a President Elect on impeachment charges brought by the House. If convicted and removed from officer, the Vice-President Elect would become President Elect. I think the Democratic senators would join that movement and approve conviction.

 

[mvymvy]

As far as the federal courts are concerned, faithless electors are a state problem. The constitution allows electors to vote for whoever they choose. In fact, that is exactly what the framers had in mind when they created the Electoral College. An election in which the people democratically selected a president was horrifying to them. That's why we have an electoral college so electors can chose the president.
.

Instead of being a deliberative body, the Electoral College, in practice, is composed of presidential electors who voted in lockstep to rubberstamp the choices that had been previously made by extra-constitutional bodies (namely, the nominating caucuses of the political parties).

Starting in 1796, political parties began nominating presidential and vice-presidential candidates on a centralized basis and began actively campaigning for their nominees throughout the country. As a result, presidential electors necessarily became rubberstamps for the choices made by the parties. “[W]hether chosen by the legislatures or by popular suffrage on general ticket or in districts, [the presidential electors] were so chosen simply to register the will of the appointing power.”
McPherson v. Blacker. 146 U.S. 1 at 36. 1892.

Presidential electors have been expected to vote for the candidates nominated by their party—that is, “to act, not to think.”

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson summarized the history of presidential electors as follows in the 1952 case of Ray v. Blair:

“No one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated, what is implicit in its text, that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices.…

“This arrangement miscarried. Electors, although often personally eminent, independent, and respectable, officially become voluntary party lackeys and intellectual nonentities"

 

[candycorn]

As far as the federal courts are concerned, faithless electors are a state problem. The constitution allows electors to vote for whoever they choose. In fact, that is exactly what the framers had in mind when they created the Electoral College. An election in which the people democratically selected a president was horrifying to them. That's why we have an electoral college so electors can chose the president.
.

Instead of being a deliberative body, the Electoral College, in practice, is composed of presidential electors who voted in lockstep to rubberstamp the choices that had been previously made by extra-constitutional bodies (namely, the nominating caucuses of the political parties).

Starting in 1796, political parties began nominating presidential and vice-presidential candidates on a centralized basis and began actively campaigning for their nominees throughout the country. As a result, presidential electors necessarily became rubberstamps for the choices made by the parties. “[W]hether chosen by the legislatures or by popular suffrage on general ticket or in districts, [the presidential electors] were so chosen simply to register the will of the appointing power.”
McPherson v. Blacker. 146 U.S. 1 at 36. 1892.

Presidential electors have been expected to vote for the candidates nominated by their party—that is, “to act, not to think.”

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson summarized the history of presidential electors as follows in the 1952 case of Ray v. Blair:

“No one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated, what is implicit in its text, that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices.…

“This arrangement miscarried. Electors, although often personally eminent, independent, and respectable, officially become voluntary party lackeys and intellectual nonentities"

We're not going to get the same cut and pastes you do every time this subject comes up?