• The concept of the EC was to level the balance between states of widely varying population. But the "winner takes all" system only began with the election of 1824 as the parties sought to consolidate their power. Electors are supposed to be a buffer between their states and possible uprisings of the people, who might try to vote in an obviously corrupt/extremely biased favorite son. Faithless electors have often acted as protest voters attempting to influence other electors, but rarely with much effect. The idea of promoting faithlessness now positions electors as elites who can simply ignore the voting public in favor of their party bias. This is wrong. Other than eliminating the EC entirely (which would require an Amendment), states should adopt a method which allow a more proportional outcome.
    • Archie Bunker
      I agree, shroom. Politicians at almost every level will shape the playing field into whatever design gives them the best chance of winning reelection. While I do not agree with a country-wide popular vote, taking away the electoral college and the way that it works is not a good option.
  • Did you find this under how to legislate a revolution? Actually it says: "Earlier this year, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis signed a law that would allot the state's electoral college votes to whichever candidate won the national popular vote." It doesn't say they can vote for whomever they want!
    • Archie Bunker
      The the court's ruling says they are not required to vote for whomever wins the popular vote. All this means now is that the political parties in each state will pick the electors that they know will vote how they want. This does not bode well for our Republic.
  • They always could vote however they pleased.

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy