I understand the OP is a hypothetical, but since someone mentioned Richie Robb, it bears mentioning that he’s said he’ll abstain if he doesn’t vote for Bush. That means he wouldn’t under any scenario hand Kerry his 270th vote, so the most damage that elector could do is send the election to the house.
Where Bush still would win.
The US Supreme Court might find that MI law unconstitutional.
It allows electors to make a separate designation for President and Vice-President when they vote. I fail to see how the 12th amendment fundamentally alters the original intent.
I didn’t mention the law. I said that the electors already know that it could come up, therefore they should already know what they would do if it did come up, therefore they should already have established what their consciences would demand of them, and they should fess up to that before accepting the job. If a party still wants them as an elector I think that’s really silly but I guess I have no major issue with it (I would expect party members to object). But if the elector doesn’t think about it beforehand and acts as if it’s a terrible shocking surprise that never ever occured to him or her, that person should be poked with a very sharp stick.
Because I already know what the law says. An elector may legally vote as he likes in many states. The question in this thread is our reaction to an elector choosing that legal but controversial route.
Without a better description of the reasons the elector became faithless, I can’t say.
For example, if the candidate is suspected of voter fraud, then I would think it was duty for the elector not to elect him/her, regardless of outcome, in the spirit of the electoral college.
Wheras, if the state in question allowed splitting of votes to represent the actual votes in a state, then the elector would be doing his / her duty by ensuring that the public vote in a state is accurately reprensented by the breakdown of electoral votes.
But in the specific case you mentioned, where an elector simply cannot vote for the candidate they should be voting for, regardless of voter results, then I agree with you that they should be condemned.
2 questions from an outsider:
One: can an elector really choose ANY third party to vote for, or does the chosen candidate not at least have to be named on the ballot?
Secondly, how far in advance are electors in each state chosen? Is this a job held for years (or continually over many elections) or only a few months prior to the elections actually being held?
Thanks.
What really gets me about the EC is that we don’t even know for whom we’re voting.
The bottom line is if I vote for candidate A on the ballot then I damn well expect that elector to vote for candidate A. This is bullshit.
Well, one of the benefits of the electoral college is that, in the event of a misfortune such as both the Pres-elect and the VP-elect dying, the electoral college can elect whomever they want.
So, in that scenario, in theory we would have the majority of electors pledged to vote for dead candidates of a certain party. Most likely, they would vote for a slate of candidates from that same party.
(Unfortunately, I’d have to guess that the Pres would turn out to be more extreme than average considering that his own party was electing him and not the general electorate. However, this is better than having to hold another election or having to throw the win to the opposing party, considering both the circumstances that must have lead to both the Pres and VP-elect dying, and, more importantly, the fact that if the deaths of the Pres and VP-elect would automatically throw the election to the opposing party, it would give wackoes and other violent types more incentive to plan extreme actions for the benefit of “their” party.)
However, I don’t think, for example, Newt Gingrinch would have a chance.