Suppose the Electoral College in Dec Works as the Founders Intended

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

We would do as we did in 2000 and accept the results of the EC.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Omitted, not prohibited.

And the Freedom of Assembly Clause of the First Amendment can be construed as an acknowledgement of the right to form political parties.

Moreover, it was indeed the intent of the Framers for the ‘general public’ to vote for president through the instrument of the states, and as represented by the EC.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

No American of common sense today thinks what the Founders thought then have anything to do with reality today.

 

[dblack]

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.

No American of common sense today thinks what the Founders thought then have anything to do with reality today.

This may be the stupidest thing you've ever posted. And that's saying something.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

No American of common sense today thinks what the Founders thought then have anything to do with reality today.

This may be the stupidest thing you've ever posted. And that's saying something.

Says one of the stupidest posters on this board ever: you. The Founders are not alive. Other than Washington the Founders jumped happily into political parties. The way it is working is just fine, and we do not need lower info no knowing people like you offering commentary on matters you know nothing about. You just get laughed at.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Most electors are chosen from the party establishment because they typically provide strong support for their candidate and can be trusted to vote for him. However, in the upcoming election, Trump has based his campaign on attacking the party establishment and they are doing everything then can to stop his nomination. In a close election between Trump and Clinton, I think it's quite possible that some of the 538 Republican electors could refuse to vote for hime throwing the election into the House or possibly to Clinton. Again not likely, however the possibility should not exist.

 

[dblack]

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.

No American of common sense today thinks what the Founders thought then have anything to do with reality today.

This may be the stupidest thing you've ever posted. And that's saying something.

Says one of the stupidest posters on this board ever: you.

You have no idea how much I relish this compliment.

You just get laughed at.

Lovin' it. Say more!

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

No American of common sense today thinks what the Founders thought then have anything to do with reality today.

This may be the stupidest thing you've ever posted. And that's saying something.

Says one of the stupidest posters on this board ever: you.

You have no idea how much I relish this compliment.

You just get laughed at.

Lovin' it. Say more!

You have principals. That looks really dumb to those that have no idea what a principal is

 

[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.

Most electors are chosen from the party establishment because they typically provide strong support for their candidate and can be trusted to vote for him. However, in the upcoming election, Trump has based his campaign on attacking the party establishment and they are doing everything then can to stop his nomination. In a close election between Trump and Clinton, I think it's quite possible that some of the 538 Republican electors could refuse to vote for hime throwing the election into the House or possibly to Clinton. Again not likely, however the possibility should not exist.

I would agree that it should not exist. I think that the possibility for the president to lose the popular and win the election should also not exist though. I really do wonder if the GOP would be willing to allow Hillary to win if trump wins the vote. The faithless elector would essentially (IMHO) end the GOP in its entirety if that happened. There are to many Trump supporters that would feel utterly robbed by the establishment that they would leave forever.

The absolute best thing for the GOP to do at this point, IMHO, is back Trump because that is what the people 'want' and then point to his colossal failure in 4 years and tell the base they do not want that again.

Both are nonsensical in the manner that we hold the presidential elections.

 

[Agit8r]

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?

This assumes a lot; the least plausible of course being that Herr Drumpf could win more than 100 electoral votes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

No American of common sense today thinks what the Founders thought then have anything to do with reality today.

This may be the stupidest thing you've ever posted. And that's saying something.

Says one of the stupidest posters on this board ever: you.

You have no idea how much I relish this compliment.

You just get laughed at.

Lovin' it. Say more!

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

This assumes a lot; the least plausible of course being that Herr Drumpf could win more than 100 electoral votes.

A good friend of mine who likes Trump is beginning to think that it Trump may rival Thurmond or Wallace in total EV count.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

No American of common sense today thinks what the Founders thought then have anything to do with reality today.

This may be the stupidest thing you've ever posted. And that's saying something.

Says one of the stupidest posters on this board ever: you.

You have no idea how much I relish this compliment.

You just get laughed at.

Lovin' it. Say more!

You have principals. That looks really dumb to those that have no idea what a principal is

dblack had a principal once before he was sent to state reform school.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Jake reveals himself as a Hillary supporter again and again

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

This assumes a lot; the least plausible of course being that Herr Drumpf could win more than 100 electoral votes.

A good friend of mine who likes Trump is beginning to think that it Trump may rival Thurmond or Wallace in total EV count.

Your good friend has a last name that rhymes with "Soros"?

 

[kaz]

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?

Gore tried the same thing in 2000, didn't work

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Jake reveals himself as a Hillary supporter again and again

Your conclusion reveals only your delusional nature and swiss cheesed mind. I wrote clearly meaning that if Donald is the people's choice in a state, that state's electors will follow the peoples' will.

We will have HRC as president only because of people like you, Frank, who are making that happen by the choices you have made and are making now.

 

[Papageorgio]

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

With only 17 of the over 22,000 votes cast, the likelihood of a group of faithless overturning very remote. It looks like the 17 faithless voters did it in protest.

 

[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?

This assumes a lot; the least plausible of course being that Herr Drumpf could win more than 100 electoral votes.

Of course it does but my point is that it should not be possible for a group of faithless electors to decide the presidency. All it would take to eliminate this possibility would be for all the states to have faithless elector legislation that disqualify any elector that fail to honor their pledge. Then there would be no reason for the electoral college. The states could then report the popular vote and number electors awarded to Congress.

 

[Agit8r]

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?

This assumes a lot; the least plausible of course being that Herr Drumpf could win more than 100 electoral votes.

Of course it does but my point is that it should not be possible for a group of faithless electors to decide the presidency. All it would take to eliminate this possibility would be for all the states to have faithless elector legislation that disqualify any elector that fail to honor their pledge. Of course the Electoral College would have no purpose.

They could just eliminate the electors altogether, and have the popular vote in each state automatically decide where the votes go. It seems like a holdover from before the information age.