2
   

Do you support doing away with the electoral college?

 
 
sparky
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2004 05:33 pm
SCoates wrote:
If everyone had to do a write in, a lot of idiots would waste their votes voting for celebrities or neighbors who aren't even running, hence weeding out a large portion of the ignorant populace.


Hehehe. In a perfect world...... Wink
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2004 05:34 pm
Write-in sounds hilarious. But it would take months then to count the votes.
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2004 05:36 pm
I realize it's unrealistic, but a guy can dream.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2004 06:25 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
No no, I mean look into what would happen to an elector if he/she decided to vote for who they want.


Has that ever happened?

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

Craven: Nothing happens to them.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2004 06:33 pm
They should be caned.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2004 06:35 pm
joefromchicago wrote:

Craven: Nothing happens to them.


That was the point. It would be easier to defraud the existing system as there's no penalty for the electors.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2004 06:39 pm
What kind of reasons have been given?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2004 06:52 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2004 06:58 pm
Interesting. I vaguely thought they could--but I did think there were parameters ... only under certain circumstances.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2004 07:28 pm
There were more cases, some are somewhat valid (e.g. dude dies between the popular vote and theirs), others less so.
0 Replies
 
flyboy804
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2004 08:00 am
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.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2004 09:01 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
There were more cases, some are somewhat valid (e.g. dude dies between the popular vote and theirs), others less so.

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.
0 Replies
 
L R R Hood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2004 09:03 am
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.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2004 09:15 am
Intersting perspective L.R.R.Hood
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2004 09:21 am
This is what a "real" presidential vote looks like:
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/2000_certificates/images/vote_dc.jpg
Note that "rogue elector" Barbara Lett-Simmons is shown as having cast a blank ballot.

Other examples can be found here.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2004 09:23 am
L.R.R.Hood wrote:
Nor do I support adding up all the points in all the world series games, either... think about it.

But then presidential elections aren't conducted state-by-state over the span of 51 days either.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2004 09:41 am
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.
0 Replies
 
L R R Hood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2004 09:52 am
Setanta wrote:
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.

.


Well put!
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2004 10:18 am
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.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 02/22/2024 at 09:00:27