Ian Millhiser has written this article for Vox. It seems to predict that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule that presidential electors are free to vote for any qualified candidate when they cast a vote in December in the electoral college. Millhiser thinks this would make the electoral college system worse.
He does not acknowledge the point that if the Court does uphold presidential elector freedom, that will make it easier for a constitutional amendment to pass that changes the electoral college system. Even supporters of the electoral college, such as Tara Ross, would like to see an amendment that eliminates the actual presidential electors, and instead creates an automatic tally of electoral votes for the candidate who won that state’s popular vote. Supporters of the electoral college would also like to guarantee that each state must use a popular vote. Currently the Constitution allows states to let state legislators choose the electors.
It would be better to pass an amendment to apportion presidential electors among the United States and their territories on the basis of citizen voting age population, with at least one elector per 20,000 CVAP persons. This would permit citizens resident in the territories the ability to vote for president, and would eliminate distortions related to senatorial bonus electors, non-citizens, children, and rounding limitations when dealing with small bodies such as the House of Representatives.
Electors would be chosen by popular election. Congress would have time, place, manner authority over their election. This would likely ensure that the presidential candidates were uniform, and perhaps nominated by direct national primary or petition. Congress could choose among at-large, district, or proportional election. The large number of electors would permit proportional election by state to be workable (for example Wyoming would have 22 electors).
Electors would meet as a single body to choose the president and vice president, by majority vote. This eliminates concerns about spoiler candidates, and non-majority presidents. It would also make the electoral college a truly deliberative body. The current state sequestration prevents this. The electors would meet in a single physical location, or in separate locations with simultaneous communication.
If there were a Vice-Presidential vacancy, the electors would meet to elect a new vice-president.
Such a ruling from the court would merely ratify the status the electors have always had as the real voters for the president. Democratizing the process was part of the same process that produced an elected Senate and undermined the federal system that the Constitution originally created. Abolition of the electoral college is a bad idea. The best option is to abolish the popular vote for president (AND Senate).
Such a ruling might make it possible for electors to run unpledged.
ONLY math MORONS love the EC machinations.
Get sane – abolish the EC and ALL the ROT that goes with it.
2019-2020 USA GOVT MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDER MATH, 7 MAY 2019 V2
GERRYMANDER LOWLITES MINI SUMMARY —
A. 30.3 PERCENT OF THE VOTERS ELECTED 218 D USA REPS OF 435 TOTAL IN 2018.
B. 19.2 PERCENT OF THE VOTERS ELECTED 50 R USA SENATORS OF 100 TOTAL IN 2014-2018.
C. 25.7 PERCENT OF THE VOTERS ELECTED R PREZ TRUMP IN 2016 – 270 of 538 ECV – 28 STATES + MECD2.
—-
PR
AppV
TOTSOP
ALL 99 gangs in the 50 State legis are 30.3 pct minority rule mini-copies of the USA H Reps.
Much, much, much worse before 1964 SCOTUS gerrymander ops.
Still some 2020 time to get more Rep district EC gerrymander votes added to ME and NE
— before or after 2020 Election Day ???
To Walter Ziobro,
Unpledged electors were elected in 1960 in Alabama & Mississippi so that situation shouldn’t change no how the Supreme Court rules.
@Deemer:
The point is that if the Supreme Court rules that electors are free to vote for anyone they want, no state could actually require electors to be pledged, or, to be precise, punish them for not keeping their pledges.
@WZ,
In Alabama (in 2020) elector candidates are required to sign a pledge that they will vote for the actual presidential and vice-presidential candidates (e.g. If elected I pledge I will vote for William Henry “Tippecanoe” Harrison and John Tyler too.). This is part of the certification of the presidential candidate. Is this legally enforceable?
The Alabama Democratic selection plans says that the party will provide a list of electors to the SOS by December 1, 2020. This does not appear to match state law. But could a state deliberately fail to appoint electors on TFTATFMIN?
@ JM:
Let’s see what the court says.
If the Republicans want to, they have enough state legislatures that they could cancel the popular vote in those states and select electors and give Trump the win. Of course, this would only work once and Democrats would take over almost every state.
The Libertarian One 2020
http://Www.1ogle.com
PSA for Iowa February 3rd 2020 Caucus
https://youtu.be/TXh-A_YUn7g