The Uniform Law Commission, which has existed since 1892, is weighing whether it should back a proposed state law that would tell presidential electors that they must vote for their party’s presidential and vice-presidential nominees, when those electors vote in December of presidential election years. The Commission held its first meeting on this proposal in July 2009 in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The second meeting will be in Chicago, December 4-5.
For those who are interested in this process, see this web page, which has the Commission’s draft proposal, and the memorandum prepared by Professor Robert Bennett, who is an expert on the electoral college, and also a list of the committee members who are considering the proposal. The proposal says that if an elector votes against his or her party’s national convention choices for President or Vice-President, the elector is deemed to have resigned, and shall be replaced by the other electors. The proposal is based on a North Carolina law.
The Uniform Law Commission has a transcript of the remarks made on this subject at the Santa Fe meeting, but it prefers not to post the transcript. However, at that meeting, there was a lively discussion as to whether there is a role for independent judgment for presidential electors. Commissioners discussed the usefulness of giving independent judgment to presidential electors in various situations. One of those situations concerned what electors should do if a presidential or vice-presidential candidate dies after the November election but before the mid-December vote of the electoral college. Another situation discussed was what electors should do if a presidential or vice-presidential nominee became seriously ill during that period. Still another situation was what electors should do if it were revealed after the November election, but before the electoral college meets, that one of the presidential or vice-presidential candidates was revealed to have a major character flaw during that period. The discussion in Chicago in December will probably be very interesting. Uniform Law Commission meetings are open to the public.
P.R. and A.V.
Abolish the time bomb gerrymander minority rule Electoral College.
Uniform definition of Elector in ALL of the U.S.A.
Who needs the States if all State laws are uniform ???
How about recall elections for getting rid of EVIL powermad Prezs/VPs ???
There is simply no purpose served by the Electoral College anymore and that which serves no purpose should be abolished. By the way, this is irrespective of whether one wishes to go to direct populat vote or retain state-by-state elections. Under the current state-by-state system, the winner of each state would be credited with the number of votes alloted to that state and Congress would tally up the various states. Nothing is gained by having electors meet in state capitols.
California Elections Code sections 8304 and 8304 would appear to permit an unpledged elector slate.
The language of 8304 is permissive as to whether the elector slate designates a Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate. 8304 is conditional on the elector slate having pledged themselves to a particular presidential and vice presidential candidate.
Incidentally, it does not appear that there is any requirement for authorization from a presidential candidate for electors to pledge themselves to him.
A simple solution would be to have presidential candidates file directly, and include their elector slate. This is how it is done in Texas for independent candidates, and there is no reason that it wouldn’t work for partisan candidates. The presidential nominee could be chosen in a direct primary, just like every other party nominee whose name appears on the general election ballot.
If you don’t think a particular person will vote for you, simply don’t include them on your elector list. And some candidates might prefer to have electors who will exercise some discretion and independent judgment.
Having ANY *faithless* Electors is like having a 2 year rug rat kid playing with the launch codes of H-bomb ICBMs — insane.