Suppose the Electoral College in Dec Works as the Founders Intended

[mvymvy]

Ya we should make it so only 6 States matter in an election. That will SURE FIX THINGS.

Analysts already conclude that only the 2016 party winner of Florida (29 electoral votes), Ohio (18), Virginia (13), Colorado (9), Nevada (6), Iowa (6) and New Hampshire (4) is not a foregone conclusion. So, if the National Popular Vote bill is not in effect, less than a handful of states will continue to dominate and determine the presidential general election.

The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states in 2012.

Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).

38 states had no campaign events, and miniscule or no spending for TV ads.

The predictability of the winner of the state you live in, not the size of the population of where you live, determines how much, if at all, your vote matters.

Issues of importance to non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them.

Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.

Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

“Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.

 

[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.

Yes, you would see a huge backlash against it.

I do not think it will ever happen though. You pointed out that faithless electors are not all that uncommon BUT none of those has ever swung an election.

Not yet.
The basic problem is that the Electoral College is a farce. According to the constitution, the electors chose the president, but we don't want them to chose the president. In fact in 25 states, we've passed laws to prevent them from exercising that choice. To become an elector, one pledges not to exercise their right of choice and vote in accordance with the vote in their state.

 

[Conservative65]

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?

There are plenty that have stated they would still vote for her even if indicted.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

There are plenty that have stated they would still vote for her even if indicted.

Find us five. Be specific and give citations.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

Yes, you would see a huge backlash against it.

I do not think it will ever happen though. You pointed out that faithless electors are not all that uncommon BUT none of those has ever swung an election.

Not yet.
The basic problem is that the Electoral College is a farce. According to the constitution, the electors chose the president, but we don't want them to chose the president. In fact in 25 states, we've passed laws to prevent them from exercising that choice. To become an elector, one pledges not to exercise their right of choice and vote in accordance with the vote in their state.

You have a link for that info? I am curious to know when those 25 states passed that. I don't remember reading about it in history class 40 years ago.

 

[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.

Yes, you would see a huge backlash against it.

I do not think it will ever happen though. You pointed out that faithless electors are not all that uncommon BUT none of those has ever swung an election.

Not yet.
The basic problem is that the Electoral College is a farce. According to the constitution, the electors chose the president, but we don't want them to chose the president. In fact in 25 states, we've passed laws to prevent them from exercising that choice. To become an elector, one pledges not to exercise their right of choice and vote in accordance with the vote in their state.

You have a link for that info? I am curious to know when those 25 states passed that. I don't remember reading about it in history class 40 years ago.

I don't know if there are any dates in this link, but this show you states that have faithless elector laws.

Faithless elector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JakeStarkey]

States with laws against faithless electors
Faithless elector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Twenty-one states do not have laws that compel their electors to vote for a pledged candidate.[3] Twenty-nine states plus the District of Columbia have laws to penalize faithless electors, although these have never been enforced.[2] In lieu of penalizing a faithless elector, some states, like Michigan and Minnesota, specify that the faithless elector's vote is void.[4]"

 

[FJO]

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

Seems to me they are just like the Democratic super delegates. Ignore the will of the people. Know better than the rubes.

Sometimes this circus with the Electoral College seems like an idea conceived and born in hell.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Seems to me they are just like the Democratic super delegates. Ignore the will of the people. Know better than the rubes.

Sometimes this circus with the Electoral College seems like an idea conceived and born in hell.

 

[Conservative65]

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?

There are plenty that have stated they would still vote for her even if indicted.

Find us five. Be specific and give citations.

"Us"? Proof you're a liar about not being a Democrat.

Most Democrats say Hillary should stay in the race if indicted

A slight majority is far more than 5.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

There are plenty that have stated they would still vote for her even if indicted.

Find us five. Be specific and give citations.

"Us"? Proof you're a liar about not being a Democrat.

Most Democrats say Hillary should stay in the race if indicted

A slight majority is far more than 5.

So you link to an online poll by asite that is dominated by far right reactionary ideologues, a poll more than 10 weeks old. You have to do far better, podjo.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

As I said, you can't vaccinate against stupid.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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?

This is C_Clayton_Jones republican twin.

Only this guy makes his argument....unlike CCJ who just pisses on a thread.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

This is C_Clayton_Jones republican twin.

Only this guy makes his argument....unlike CCJ who just pisses on a thread.

Clayton owns Sun Devil, no doubt about it.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Yes, you would see a huge backlash against it.

I do not think it will ever happen though. You pointed out that faithless electors are not all that uncommon BUT none of those has ever swung an election.

Yes they have, several times.

No, it has not happened, ever.

No one here is talking about the popular vote going against the electoral vote. Read again and look at what, specifically, was contended in those posts.

 

[JQPublic1]

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.

Yes, you would see a huge backlash against it.

I do not think it will ever happen though. You pointed out that faithless electors are not all that uncommon BUT none of those has ever swung an election.

Yes they have, several times.

No, it has not happened, ever.

No one here is talking about the popular vote going against the electoral vote. Read again and look at what, specifically, was contended in those posts.

No, you have it backwards. The popular vote is tabulated first. Then comes the EC vote before which the popular vote is known to the electors and ostensibly influences their vote but doesn't force them to vote accordingly. If the chosen partisan electors are faithless in their obligation to vote as pledged for the candidate of their party, who has also won the popular vote, that is swinging the vote in the oppositions's favorand that has been done several times to give the election to a certain person despite his winning the popular vote.

 

[FA_Q2]

If it every happened, t

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.

Yes, you would see a huge backlash against it.

I do not think it will ever happen though. You pointed out that faithless electors are not all that uncommon BUT none of those has ever swung an election.

Yes they have, several times.

No, it has not happened, ever.

No one here is talking about the popular vote going against the electoral vote. Read again and look at what, specifically, was contended in those posts.

No, you have it backwards. The popular vote is tabulated first. Then comes the EC vote before which the popular vote is known to the electors and ostensibly influences their vote but doesn't force them to vote accordingly. If the chosen partisan electors are faithless in their obligation to vote as pledged for the candidate of their party, who has also won the popular vote, that is swinging the vote in the oppositions's favorand that has been done several times to give the election to a certain person despite his winning the popular vote.

Cite when a faithless elector has changed the outcome of an election.

 

[Flopper]

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

Yes, you would see a huge backlash against it.

I do not think it will ever happen though. You pointed out that faithless electors are not all that uncommon BUT none of those has ever swung an election.

Yes they have, several times.

No, it has not happened, ever.

No one here is talking about the popular vote going against the electoral vote. Read again and look at what, specifically, was contended in those posts.

No, you have it backwards. The popular vote is tabulated first. Then comes the EC vote before which the popular vote is known to the electors and ostensibly influences their vote but doesn't force them to vote accordingly. If the chosen partisan electors are faithless in their obligation to vote as pledged for the candidate of their party, who has also won the popular vote, that is swinging the vote in the oppositions's favorand that has been done several times to give the election to a certain person despite his winning the popular vote.

Cite when a faithless elector has changed the outcome of an election.

It's never happened but it certainly could have.
Just 6 faithless electors could have made Al Gore president instead of George Bush and only 2 faithless electors could have made Samuel Tilden president instead of Rutherford B. Hayes.

It is certainly possible today and it's unlikely the Supreme Court would intervene. Is it likely? No, but possible. In order for faithless electors to steal the election several things must occur. The election would have to be close with only a few electoral votes separating the candidates. The faithless electors would have to come from states that don't have laws that disqualify them. And lastly, those electors would have to be willing to break their pledge and go against their party which could certainly occur it the party was deeply divided.

The Closest Presidential Races

 

[FA_Q2]

Never said it couldn't - I said that it has not. In the context of the debate the above really does not address anything.

It would have been interesting should they have swung the election for Gore. Because the popular vote was for Gore then faithless electors could have had a reason to swing the election and I think the political fallout would have been very little though the crying and personal fallout for those electors would certainly have been rather huge.

 

[longknife]

When will you people realize that

A. The founders despised political parties and omitted them from the constitution.

B. The general public was never meant to vote for the President - or Senators.