The National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws has existed since the 19th century. It proposes model laws to the state legislatures of all states. The Commission has been meeting this year to work on a proposed model law on how to stop presidential electors from voting for presidential or vice-presidential candidates who vote for someone in the electoral college who was not their party’s choice.
The next meeting is in Chicago, December 4 and December 5. It is at the Hotel Sax, 333 N. Dearborn St., and is open to the public. The meetings are Friday, Dec. 4, 9 a.m. thru 5 p.m., and Saturday, 8:30 a.m. thru 3 p.m. The original model bill has been modified since the last meeting. One of the most interesting revisions is to provide that if the presidential nominee of a party dies after November ballots are printed, but before the electoral college meets in mid-December, the electors must vote for their party’s vice-presidential nominee. If they don’t, they are deemed to have resigned and will be replaced by their alternate. The model law provides that states would elect alternate presidential electors to replace presidential electors who vote “disobediently.”
The Electoral College is 1 of the 3 EVIL minority rule U.S.A. gerrymander systems stuck over the 1776-1788 State gerrymander systems.
P.R. and A.V.
At the least the *faithless* Prez Electors should be put in jail for life — due to the entire timebomb nature of te E.C. — see the 1860 election — and the about 620,000 DEAD Americans in 1861-1865 as a result of such election.
There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
The Electoral College could be a Jeopardy answer to the question: Why is America so successful?
Demo Rep’s comment is historically and politically uninformed. What happened in 1860 was that other political forces overcame the incentives created by the Electoral College that favor political moderation. Think about it: the Democratic Party in 1860 basically said, we’ll split our party and LOSE the Electoral College because of our difference over slavery and secession. Does anyone think that would happen less under direct election?
There would be a lot more 1860-type presidential contests under a national popular vote system, with more candidates, more regionalism, and more radicalism. That would mean less stability, which leads to less security, liberty, and prosperity.