Electoral college

[Evander]

If a candidate wins a state, why don't the electoral votes for that state automatically go to the winner? Why do they need to filtered through someone who is not obligated to vote for the winner of that state? And while I'm at, why the fuck aren't the electoral college members who represent a certain state obligated to vote for the winner of said state? Why do they deserve the power the vote for whoever they feel like? Is there a record of the 2004 electoral college of members who voted against the winner of their state? If these records are public (and in a government that is supposed to be transparent, they damn well better be), has there ever been an incident where citizens of a state have protested against against a member who cast an electoral college vote contrary to the popular vote of that state? And has there ever been an incident (or near incident) in US history where a candidate was supposed to have won the election based on electoral votes that were supposed to have been cast in his favor wound up losing the election (due to maverick electoral college members) when those electoral votes were counted after the popular election? Is this not a likely scenario if there was a serious scandal involving a candidate in between the popular vote in Nov and when the votes are cast/counted in Dec/Jan?
Outside of the US with countries that also use an electoral college type system, has their ever been an incident where the winner of an election was denied his administration due to maverick electoral college members?

 

[fskimospy]

The reason they don't go automatically to the winner is because the founding fathers didn't think the people were smart/educated/whatever enough to pick a president. All the constitution says is that the electors will be assigned in a manner that the state legislatures direct. If a state wanted to it could award its electors to the winner of the First Annual Presidential Pie Eating Contest and Grammar Rodeo.

When you refer to an elector not voting for the winner of their state, it's called a 'faithless elector'. Some states have laws against this, but I don't think anyone's actually been convicted or whatever under them. I'm not aware of any other country that uses an electoral college, but I do know that no US presidential election has ever been changed by a faithless elector.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Evander

Maverick electoral college members?

Can't wait for the Maverick electoral college members to steal the election :thumbsup:

A hot Sara wearing $6,000 Oscar De Larenta dresses :heart:

 

[MovingTarget]

Well, it was initially designed in an era when you simply couldn't just "call-in" the electoral vote of your state. You could either send a letter (which could be tampered with) or send a delegate to do it in person. Nowadays, the role of a delegate is largely symbolic as we can just "call it in" if we so chose.

Delegates aren't obligated to vote for whoever won their state as this used to be an indirect election, where we would find someone who represented the feelings/opinions of the person's district. People voted for delegates who campaigned, not actual people who were running for president. While this has changed, (as we do vote for the name/policy of the presidential candidate and not of the individual elector), the obligation requirement was not added to reflect this. Hence, the disconnect. The obligation simply wasn't any part of the original EC system. Whether it is right or wrong, should be changed or shouldn't, is up to the powers that be, whoever they may be.

You also have to take notice that not all states are winner-take-all (but most are) and have delegates proportionally divided. This is up to the individual states, not the federal gvt.

I am not sure if these records are public. They should be.

In the scenario of a scandal, the electors can (and sometimes do) change their votes. You can see this as an oversight or a safegaurd depending on how you look at it.

I can't tell you about other contries' EC systems, but as of late "maverick" is probably a bad choice of words to use when describing unscrupulous electors considering the circumstances.

 

[StageLeft]

It really is a big silly circus isn't it?

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It really is a big silly circus isn't it?

Yes. However, I can't decide which is the bigger one: The EC as a physical event or the taxpayer-funded party conventions they have every 4 years.

Love 'em or hate 'em, they are so entrenched in our system that it would take a HUGE screwup to get the ball rolling to change them one way or another.

 

[rockyct]

I remember in 2000 Gore technically lost one electoral vote after a DC elector abstained as a protest for something.

 

[Farang]

Everything you wanted to know, in one convenient page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

No contest has ever been decided by a faithless elector.