Do you support doing away with the electoral college?

Hehehe. In a perfect world......

Write-in sounds hilarious. But it would take months then to count the votes.

I realize it's unrealistic, but a guy can dream.

McG: It happens fairly often. There were rogue electors in 1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, and 2000.

Craven: Nothing happens to them.

They should be caned.

That was the point. It would be easier to defraud the existing system as there's no penalty for the electors.

What kind of reasons have been given?

1968: A North Carolina Republican elector voted for George Wallace.

1972: A Virginia Republican elector voted for Libertarian candidate John Hospers.

1976: A Washington Republican elector voted for Ronald Reagan.

1988: A West Virginia Democratic elector switched the order on his ballot and voted for Lloyd Bentsen for president and Michael Dukakis for vice-president.

2000: A District of Columbia Democratic elector abstained.

Sophia: I don't know what their reasons were. I would surmise that they were, in one way or another, jerks.

Interesting. I vaguely thought they could--but I did think there were parameters ... only under certain circumstances.

There were more cases, some are somewhat valid (e.g. dude dies between the popular vote and theirs), others less so.

I wouldn't say "nothing" happens to them if they vote against whom they're pledged to. Since most electors are given the position as a party reward, defectors probably will not be the recipient of future rewards.

Well, I was only drawing examples from the last 40 years. There were rogue electors before 1968 (in the 50s and 60s they were most often segregationist Democrats who split with the national candidate, as was the case in 1960 when 15 electors voted for Harry F. Bird rather than John F. Kennedy), but nowadays it seems that most rogue electors are going "off the reservation" for more idiosyncratic reasons.

And the only instance in American history where a major-party candidate died between the date of the election and the date when the electors cast their ballots was in 1872, when Horace Greeley, the Democratic candidate, died shortly after the election. The Democratic electors were free to vote for anyone (except Greeley -- three electors who voted for the dead candidate had their ballots rejected), but it really didn't matter since the Republican candidate, Ulysses S. Grant, had won the contest by over 200 electoral votes.

Here's a handy list of "faithless" electors since 1796.

I do NOT support doing away with the electorial college.

Nor do I support adding up all the points in all the world series games, either... think about it.

Intersting perspective L.R.R.Hood

This is what a "real" presidential vote looks like:

Note that "rogue elector" Barbara Lett-Simmons is shown as having cast a blank ballot.

Other examples can be found here.

But then presidential elections aren't conducted state-by-state over the span of 51 days either.

I said no for a very specific reason. Without regard to the original intent of the convention (which cannot be stated with absolute certainty, beyond what appears in correspondence--and so, is open to endless and unproductive debate), i consider it as protecting the vestiges of state sovereignty, which otherwise only exist in the Senate's ratification (or rejection) of executive appointments and treaties.

Outright warfare in the streets of this nation are unlikely. "A well regulated militia" in our day is a pipedream of those whom the gun lobby has cozened, and alarmed with propaganda--a group of largely militarily clueless citizens with as many different firearms as members would be no match for the ATF, let alone the Army. I consider that the sovereignty of the states protects us from a centralized tyranny, and that therefore the composition of the Electoral College, and the powers and duties of the Senate are our most effective protections.

Others are free, of course, to disagree, and to argue the point. I am unlikely to change my opinion, however, as it is the product of years of careful consideration of our polity and how it works.

Well put!

I think it should be done away with. Most people think that when they vote they are voting for a particular person in the presidential elections. They are not. They are voteing for an elector who is supposed to vote for the person who was voted for. In some states the legislature has passed laws telling the electors they must vote for the person who won the election in thier state. Most sates do not have such laws so the electors can vote for whom ever they want to. They are not required to vote the way the voters of thier state voted. The fact is if someone was able to gain control of the electorial collage they could elect someone who wasent even on the ballot of any of the states. Impossable? So was the election of a president by the Supreme Court untill this president was elected. Old and established dosent always equate with best.