If nobody voted...

Post Reply New Topic

Here is the thing. Either there is a law that electors should vote for the candidate that won the state, or there isn't. If there is that law, then we wouldn't even have a rare few exceptions (such as one elector in DC voting for Colin Powell), cause the law doesn't get broken. So we have to conclude that there isn't. Which, in turn, implies that electors are totally free to "all" vote in contradiction to the public, they just "choose" not to due to their very strong personal convictions to obide by the "unspoken rule" so to speak.

It is nice the above stated convictions cause them to vote for a different party if that other party happened to win public vote. But the question remains: the laws have to be fair. So if the laws provide separate set of electors for Republicans and Democrats, they should also provide separate set of electors for each of the third parties.

The law states that 538 Electors must be picked.

It doesn’t dictate HOW they will be picked.

I wish they’d do away with the Electoral College.

I thought it did state how they are picked? Namely, based on popular vote?

If it doesn't state, what is the exact wording of the law?

The VOTES of the Electors are based on the popular vote.

The Electors are usually picked within conventions of the two main political parties. But that’s irrelevant, since, except in very rare instances, they must vote for the candidate with the most votes within the state.

There is no must: as I mentioned, one elector in DC voted for Colin Powel in 2016 election.

Read the link I posted.

Electors voting against the winning candidate of a state (or DC) is extremely rare.

But if they happen at all it means they are allowed.

The law is yes or no thing. Does the law allow them or not?

If the answer is no, why would this happen, no matter how rare it is?

Sometimes, somebody goes against tradition—but it very rarely happens.

It’s reality. That’s how the Electoral College works. I wish they’d get rid of it.

There is a 'must'.

You CAN be fined for doing that because it is against the law. But they dont always levy the fine.

So its kinda mandatory, but its also, kinda based on the honor system.

The EC evolved over time. The founding fathers had it set up so you actually voted FOR the electors (their names were on the ballot), and not the candidates. You were picking the guy whom you thought was wise enough to pick your president. Except that 'you', the ordinary voter had no say. It was the state legislators who picked the electors.

Then as the 19th century continued it gradually evolved to system we have now- in which regular folks vote for the POTUS, and its the candidates for POTUS whose names are on the ballot.

Most states are winner take all- all of the electors of the state go to the candidate who wins the popular vote. Though some do it by district (so the same state could be split between candidates).

I suppose that you could replace electors with robots. Modified Roomba vacs adapted to casting ballots, instead of vacuuming rooms. And these robots would just automatically vote the way the state's human voters voted. But the human electors usually act like robots and do what theyre supposed to do despite their human biases.

I dont know why you're so hung up on this. The more interesting subject is whether or not we should have an electorial.