Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Can Electoral College ignore voters...

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Can Electoral College ignore voters... (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/69488-can-electoral-college-ignore-voters.html)

Can Electoral College ignore voters...

...and vote however they please?

A co-worker of mine was saying that if the electoral college wanted to, they could completely ignore voters and choose who they want as pres. Is this true?

So say majority votes for Kerry, could the electoral college just up and decide to allocate those points that would normally go to Kerry to Bush?

From what I remember from my high school history days, they can do just that.

Yes they can, but you have to understand it's not likely. The people who represent each state on the electoral college are chose by the state party organization of the winning candidate. So, in order for that to happen, someone who was chosen BY the state republican or state democratic party would have to then go and vote otherwise, which would also, in most cases, guarantee they would never be chosen for anything by that party again. It's VERY unlikely.

EDIT: And if any of that is going to happen this election, it will be the other way around. People chosen as the Republican party electors who don't feel comfortable voting for Bush and voting for Kerry, or someone completely different instead so as not to give their vote to ANYONE.

The EC is supposed to vote based on the popular vote in their state but are not required to. That is why I never fully understood why the EC even exists.

The EC ensures that the will of the urban majority doesn't surpass that of the rural minority. Without the EC and with direct popular voting, candidates would be able to campaign only to the wishes of cities and basiaclly ignore the smaller population areas and still win elections.

That's not to say the electoral college system is great, but it's better than direct popular voting.

EDIT: And they don't vote based on the popular vote. The only two states I know of that do that are Maine and Nebraska. In most states the EC votes "winner take all" so no matter what the margin, the person with the most votes gets all electoral votes for the state. Maine and Nebraska are the only ones where the electoral votes are split proportionally to the popular vote.

Never understood that argument either. We are a democracy which is supposed to be we follow the will of the majority. So how can the popular election be unfair if it means the majority always wins?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mb99usa

Never understood that argument either. We are a democracy which is supposed to be we follow the will of the majority. So how can the popular election be unfair if it means the majority always wins?

:confused:

We're not a democracy. We're a representative republic. Big difference.

This can help with a lot of these questions: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=66411

More info: http://www.wallbuilders.com/resource...p?ResourceID=4 (ignore the religious propaganda on the site, otherwise it gives the general idea)

And, the ultra-short version ;) - "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
Benjamin Franklin

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

We're not a democracy. We're a representative republic. Big difference.

Damn you Secretmethod, you beat me to it. :p

The main concern I have referencing the electorial college is the hold the 2 parties seem to have. So far it seems to be in the Federal Reserved greater favor the continue with it intact. If one is concerned about the more populated cities controlling the vote the freedom to move there always exsists. In my humblest opinion its hard for me to get past seeing America as a big bowl with votes in it. Whoever gets the most votes (popular vote) wins. TV is a common thing these days. Debates and electronic campaigning would seem to carry at least as much weight as the trail does. Thats only a guess.

Sorry this is off-topic but....

Sun Tzu, your avatar kicks my avatar's ass :D :lol:

To add substance to my post however, here is what Michael Badnarik says regarding the electoral college (from Slashdot) ....

Quote:

How to reform Electoral College?

There have been proposals to eliminate the electoral college. Notably, Slate has run a series of pieces calling it "America's worst college." Slate's coverage has examined some of the political difficulties in trying to change the system and has proposed some possible solutions.

It's clear from the results of 1992 that the electoral college, as currently implemented at the national and state level, tends to turn small spreads into large ones, and eliminates 3rd parties altogether. As a 3rd party candidate, this must be an important issue to you (after ballot access, perhaps the most important one).

How do you propose to address this? Would you support an amendment to the US Constitution to abolish the Electors in favor of direct popular vote? Or, would it make more sense to address it state by state, using legislation to split the electors proportionately within each state (as Maine and Nebraska do)?

Quote:

I have to tell you that I'm skeptical of electoral college reform at the federal level. Yes, the system has flaws, but I haven't seen any alternative proposals that don't have serious flaws themselves.

On the state level, I do advocate choosing electors by congressional district as Maine and Nebraska do, with the two non-district electors going to the overall winner of the popular vote. That would be more reflective of overall American voter sentiment.

Going to a straight popular vote would, perversely, represent the end of American democracy. Candidates would be inclined to cater to a few urban areas where they can buy the most votes for their buck (or their promise), effectively disenfranchising rural voters. To the extent that the presidency is a representative office, it should represent Peoria and Birmingham as much as it represents New York and Los Angeles.

Also, an excerpt from his response to a different question...

Quote:

There are various alternative voting systems that address this problem.

Instant Runoff Voting allows the voter to assign a rank to each candidate; if no candidate gets a majority of "first place" votes, then "second place" votes are counted, and so on, until someone gets a majority. This allows people to choose a "third party" candidate as their first preference, but still get a vote between frontrunners if their candidate loses.

Personally, I prefer Approval Voting. In this method, each voter can select as many candidates as he likes -- he can vote for all the candidates whom he can live with. All of the votes are counted, and the candidate with the most votes wins. The result is that the winner is not necessarily "the most popular," but "the one that the most voters are okay with."

Of course, the "major" parties don't approve of anything that might threaten to break their shared monopoly on power.

It's happened once, with the election of Garfield. He was assassinated 6 months later (he lived for 80 days after being shot in month 4).

I understand the role of the EC more now thanks to SM70 but I still think the people should be in full control, regardless of population or representation.

No one has linked to this article yet?

Robb's vote may not go to Bush; GOP mayor may use Electoral College to lodge protest against president

Quote:

Wednesday September 08, 2004

South Charleston Mayor Richie Robb said today he may vote against George W. Bush in the Electoral College, even if the president carries West Virginia's popular vote.

Robb, long known as a maverick Republican, said he is considering using his position as one of the state's five Republican electors to protest what he believes are misguided policies of the current administration.

"It's not likely that I would vote for Kerry," Robb said. "But I'm looking at what my options are when it comes time to cast my vote."

State election law dictates that the party of the candidate who wins the popular vote for president gets to send its five electors when the Electoral College convenes in mid-December.

At their state convention in June, the members of the West Virginia Republican Party chose the top five runners-up from their gubernatorial primary to serve as electors. Robb, who finished fourth in the May primary, will be among them.

Robb, who said he might reconsider if Bush changed his foreign and domestic policy priorities, said he is researching his options under state law.

There is no provision in the West Virginia code that controls what an elector does at the Electoral College or provides any punishment for faithless electors.

There have been eight electors in American history who have chosen to go against the popular vote in their home states, including Margarette Leach of Huntington, who declined to vote for Michael Dukakis in 1988, even though Dukakis carried West Virginia.

Leach cast her presidential vote for Dukakis' running mate, Lloyd Bentsen instead. In 2000, one of the electors from the District of Columbia withheld her vote altogether in protest of the district's lack of statehood.

Robb said he is considering either voting for a third candidate or withholding his vote altogether.

"I know that among some in my own party, what I'm discussing would be considered treasonous," Robb said. "But I'm not going to cheerlead us down the primrose path when I know we're being led in the wrong direction."

Fellow elector Rob Capehart was somewhat taken aback by Robb's flirtation with defection.

"We have a duty and responsibility to cast our electoral votes behind the president if he wins West Virginia," Capehart said. "Because that's what the Republican Party expected when they chose us."

Capehart raised the possibility that in a very close election, every electoral vote becomes crucial. In such a case, Robb would wield great power by virtue of his willingness to defect.

"Will Richie Robb decide who the next president is?" Capehart asked. "It's more important for us to maintain an allegiance for the people of West Virginia than an allegiance to our own personal viewpoint."

Robb's complaints about Bush center on what the mayor believes was a misguided policy on Iraq and the swelling budget deficit.

"I only started to really rethink my position seriously after the accusations about Kerry's service in Vietnam, though," Robb said. "I served in Vietnam, and I think Bush's surrogates, and I think really the Bush campaign, went beyond the line with those ads."

But state GOP Chairman Kris Warner was confident that Robb would come around.

"I'm confident that he'll do the right thing," Warner said. "He's a veteran. And although he's an independent mayor of South Charleston and does things his own way, he also knows what it's like to be part of a team."