There is much commentary from experts who believe that if the U.S. Supreme Court rules that presidential electors are free to vote for any qualified candidate in December, that there will be an increase in electors who “disobey.” This concern is not well founded.
In many states, the major parties in recent years have been very relaxed and casual about whom they choose to be presidential elector candidates. But if the U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of elector freedom, that will change. Major parties in the future will probably choose presidential elector candidates who are individuals with a long record of service to their political party. The U.S. Constitution permits state legislators to be presidential electors. Major parties would be free to choose their elector candidates from the ranks of veteran state legislators from their own party. Experienced state legislators are known and understood by major party leaders. Experienced state legislators who have a record would be “safe” choices for the major parties.
So, paradoxically, if the U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of elector freedom, the consequences are likely to be fewer “disloyal” electors in the future, rather than more.
I agree with the analysis that Electors in the future will be more closely vetted for fanatical loyalty.
The anticipated Supreme Court ruling favor of Elector autonomy will probably make the enlargement of the U S House of Representatives more difficult because that change would flow through to increase the number of Electors and the number of possible “rogue”, but proportionally it shouldn’t matter if a few dozen votes are scattered among “spoiler” candidates. The Status quo is deeply embedded.
Simple — DEATH penalty or mere DEATH threats for any faithless 12 Amdt HACKS.
—-
C. USA PRESIDENT-2016 ELECTION — TRUMP
53 GERRYMANDER AREAS – 50 STATES + DC + ME CD 1+2, ECV = ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES
538 TOTAL ECV, 270 MAJORITY ECV
VOTES PCT TV ECV
35,742,053 *25.7 270 IN 28 ST+ MECD2
— — —
40,992,329 29.5 306 TOTAL 30 ST + MECD2
— — —
138,846,571 100.0 538 EST. TOTAL VOTES
—————
Abolish the ANTI-Democracy minority rule EC and ALL the crap that goes with it —
including the USA Senate with its many small below average States with their blowhard MORON hacks – esp USA Senators and State Guvs.
—
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
Lawyer and SCOTUS MORONS able to detect 14-2 ???
DENY / ABRIDGE.
Direct = Indirect — part of Con Law 0000001.
@RW,
In Texas, independent and write-in presidential candidates file their slate of presidential elector candidates, along with their vice-presidential candidate. The presidential candidate, vice-presidential candidate, and all 38 elector candidastes sign the application.
This could be easily extended to partisan candidates, who would also require the signature of the state party chair granting permission to have the party name appear next to the candidate’s name on the ballot.
Better yet would be to have the presidential, vice-presidential, and elector candidates appear at the SOS office and file in person. There could be uncommitted slates, consisting only of the elector candidates.
Choose the winning slate of electors using Top 2.
@DR,
Whose right to vote is being abridged?
JR–
obviously the human voters who vote for AA for Prez and a faithless MORON votes for ZZ for Prez.
What State ever had ??? —
Prez Electors – NONPARTISAN
Vote for 1 or more.
—–
CONDITIONAL appointment of Art II Prez Electors [ STATE agents] to comply with 14-2 RESULTS — or NOT ???
How many FATAL defects in the late DARK AGE 1787 USA Const ???
@DR,
Who abridged their right to vote?
JR –
OBVIOUSLY the faithless MORON STATE AGENT who votes for ZZ for Prez.
akin to a SOS / county/ precinct FELON hack who switches votes for candidates.
How many New Age math MORONS love the minority rule gerrymanders in the USA and State regimes ???
On to Civil WAR II – with the current crop of SCOTUS HACK morons — akin to the 1857 crop in Dred Scott — setup for Civil WAR I.
How many election related Amdts due to Civil WAR I — Hmmm — Could be 13-14-15.
Electors are not state agents. It would be better to have all electors listed on the ballot. Even better would be to have all electors be unbound, and only the electors listed. And even better than that would be to have no official ballot at all, and go back to private printed or handwritten ballots to elect unbound electors.
II-1-2
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
—-
Sorry — appointed STATE AGENTS — from top state exec hack to state dog catcher.
Appointment was by legislative vote originally with the design that the electors be unbound and the electoral college deliberative, not pro forma. Later it became a popular vote by state, but the tickets were still informal. Then the ballots became official, but the electors were still listed individuals. Only recently did they become mere state agents. If the idea was to have state agents, one per state, or a letter would have sufficed. While appointed in a manner chosen by state legislatures, the idea was never to select automatons.
Nor should they be. Going back to the original idea of unbound electors meeting deliberately would be far better.
The last state that let voters vote for individual candidates for elector was Vermont. It last did so in 1976.
So not that long ago on a centuries scale.
Nebraska and Maine choose all but two of their Electors by Congressional District. All Electors could chosen by District and two at-large in every state with all Elector candidates running as individuals under the same rules for U S Representatives and U S Senators. Members of a state legislature may be candidates for Presidential Elector. Of course, write-in Electors should be an option for voters in all states.
If the electoral college was meant to just be a formality why wouldn’t the legislature vote directly and convey a letter as to the tally? It was clearly meant to be a deliberative process.
The EC was/is one of the 3 ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymander systems in the USA regime —
slammed together by the small and slave State oligarchs —
based on the EC type systems for picking the 1787 German and Poland kings.
How many *modern* DEMOCRACY regimes [national/federal, state/local] survive with having their top execs DIRECTLY elected by CITIZENS of a regime — AND NOT BY SPECIAL INTEREST GANGSTER OLIGARCHS ???
ESP how many 12 Amdt Electors manage to get appointed to a HIGH paying $$$ USA job by a winning Prez ??? — TOTAL EVIL ROT — loved by polisci MORONS — esp in the LP.
The point was to preserve separation of powers between federal and state governments and between the legislative and executive branches. Wasn’t separation of powers one of your hobbyhorses? “Modern democracies” generally don’t have those separations, so they’re not exactly the best model to aspire to.
@ DFR: Expanding the size of the House of Representatives, and thus increasing the total number of electors, should dilute the effect of any rogue electoral votes.
The idea that the electoral college was meant to be deliberative is undermined by two facts:the electoral college as a whole never meets, and if the electoral college does not produce a majority for one candidate, the electors do not get a second vote. Instead the House of Representatives decides.
The electoral college was established because different states had different qualifications for voters, and with the e.c., states which restricted voter participation would still have proportionate representation in the selection of the President.
I believe it did meet at one time, and I also recall reading explicit arguments by founders that it should be deliberative. It’s true that it only votes once, but then travel was much harder in those days. Qualification of voters couldn’t have been the reason as legislators picked the electors until iirc the 1830s. No appointment of electors would have been needed, regardless of voting qualifications; legislators could have voted and sent a letter to congress and the vote of each state could have been weighed by the same formula as the electoral college.
2019-2020 USA GOVT MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDER MATH, V.3, 5 FEB 2020
ANTI-DEMOCRACY LOWLITES —
A. 30.3 PERCENT OF THE VOTERS ELECTED 218 LOW D USA REPS OF 435 TOTAL IN 2018.
[much worse before 1964 SCOTUS USA Rep gerrymander case]
B. 19.2 PERCENT OF THE VOTERS ELECTED 50 LOW R USA SENATORS OF 100 TOTAL IN 2014-2018. [R VP]
[much worse before 17 Amdt — bribed gerrymander legislatures appointing USA Senators]
C. 25.7 PERCENT OF THE VOTERS ELECTED R PREZ TRUMP IN 2016. [270 of 306 of 538 EC votes]
[much worse earlier — fewer voters]
—
TOTAL EVIL ROT — since 1776 – ALL States regimes
since 1789 in USA regime.
Just enough math MORONS loving nonstop minority rule regimes since 1776 —
based on gerrymander formation of Brit House of Commons in 1200s.
LARGE fraction of the olde HC areas were de facto controlled by Brit monarchs/*Lords* to 1832 Great Reform Act– 500 plus years — esp in 1761-1784 >>> KG III tyrant regime.
—–
Prevent USA Civil WAR II / WW III —
ALL regimes
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
2-1-3 orig
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. ******
—
12 Amdt
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; ******
Why should “disobedient” electors be something to fear?
Correct, so they did meet to deliberate, broken up by state. Interstate travel was way too difficult then. Travel across the state was also no small thing.
The new pure proportional representation Electoral College is regularly picking titles (chair, secretay, Minister etc.) and voting for Unity Platform USA.
http://www.pprelectoralcollege.com
@Steve,
By the third election in 1796, all electors were chosen with an expectation that they would vote for a particular candidate. Any deliberation was fictitious.
Alternative:
(1) Apportion electors among the States and their territories on the basis of citizen voting-age population, with at least one elector per 10,000 such persons;
(2) Electors chosen by popular vote, by persons eligible to vote for executive office. Congress may establish, time, place, manner regulation;
(3) Electors meet as collective body to choose president and vice-president by majority vote.
Why more ad hoc band-aids for political brain cancer ???
—-
PERMANENT remedies —
Uniform definition of Elector/voter in ALL of the USA – including occupied colonies
— USA Citizen and 18+ yrs olde
ONE election day per year
ONLY secret equal nom pets for INDIVIDUAL candidates
ONLY secret mail ballots
PR legis and APPV exec/judic pending Condorcet
TOTSOP
The US constitution may permit it, but for a state legislator to be elected as a Presidential Elector:
1.) The state constitution has to allow an individual to hold two state offices simultaneously (which can happen depending on whether they are already holding an office and the dates of their office terms.)
2.) State law has to allow an individual to be on the ballot twice: once as a candidate for state legislature, the second as a candidate for Presidential Elector.
It happened a lot in 2016 when people were being careless with the paperwork. But it seems to me most states should preclude one, the other, or both.
I don’t think that interpretation of state office is generally applied to electors. They’re not even listed on the ballot anymore. And only some states don’t allow people to run for more than one office.