There’d be no need to report it to the FBI. If a slate or a substantial portion of same voted the “wrong” way, everyone would know that had occurred.
But proving there was bribery wouldn’t necessarily be easy. I’m not even sure that bribing an Elector is a crime. I would certainly hope it is.
Once the electors vote, is there any way to undo it? Yeah maybe they get caught and are put on trial, but the result stands, no?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I never understood why right wingers trot out that line as if it means anything. I’ve never seen a progressive use it, but every so often a right winger will proclaim “The US is a republic, not a democracy” and we’re supposed to be convinced of something as though that proves that they have superior knowledge and we should swallow whatever they’re trying to sell us.
North Korea is a republic, not a democracy. Guess the folks who trot out this line must really like the Juche Philosophy.
Except their the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, so they are a democracy, at least to the people who believe that the Nazis were socialists since they have socialism in their name.
North Korea is a communist dictatorship.
All of you libs realize that if you think that your slate of electors - chosen from the most loyal of the the state’s party members - are open to bribery to change the election away from their candidate then I say that says more about the Democrat Party than the Republicans…
Liberals were pleading with electors to go faithless in 2016. I suspect that’ll become a standard part of presidential campaigns going forward: influence campaigns against the electors themselves throughout most of November and December every fourth year.
I’m not sure of the details, but when Congress tallies the electoral college votes, there’s an opportunity for Senators and Representatives to object. Some asshat Dems in the House tried to do it in 2016.
No, it’s a socialist worker’s state. There’s a WORLD of difference. I mean, the difference between a republic and a democracy is puny compared to the incredible nuances that exist between a “communist dictatorship” – whatever those words actually mean – and a socialist worker’s state (which is one form of a republic BTW). Obviously, everyone should know that, because it’s incredibly important.
Assuming you’re speaking of the Democratic Party (rather than some fictional “Democrat Party”), it is indeed filled with humans, and sometimes humans have weaknesses of character like susceptibility to bribery. I don’t think this says anything about the Democratic Party as opposed to any other.
It does suggest a rather glaring weakness in the Electoral College system, IMO.
They tried everything they could think of to overturn the 2016 results: recounts, persuading electors to go faithless, objecting to the certification of the vote, etc.
How well did bribing electors work for Samuel Tilden?
How many faithless electors have there been from states without FE laws?
Has there ever been a case (besides 1876) that a candidate has tried to bribe electors (from states without FE laws) to change an elector?
How likely is it that an elector will change their vote from their candidate as a result of a bribe?
What I want to know is "How likely is it that an elector will change their vote to prevent a deranged, ignorant, dangerous, unprincipled candidate who lost the popular vote from attaining the White House?
The risk for these things appears to be relatively low, but low is not zero, and it could be eliminated altogether with a popular vote system. With the popular vote, every American voter has exactly the same power – a New Yorker has the same exact voting influence as an Iowan, a Texan, a Montanan, etc. That seems like a far better (and fairer) system to me – giving the power to voters, not to states that just so happen to be swing-states at the expense of others.
I agree with this. Shit would get real serious real fast if a few faithless electors throw an election one day.
Personally, I like the idea of possibly amending the Electoral College to be chosen at the district level, and the senatorial votes apportioned by the statewide popular vote.
That way, it retains some of the small state weight, but isn’t all-or-nothing at a state level.
So for Texas, we might assume that it would have gone 23/13 Republican/Democrat, with another 2 Republican votes, for a total of 25/13. Better than 38/0, but it also still gives Wyoming 3 electoral votes, rather than an absurdly minuscule 262,000 possible votes (number of registered voters in Wyoming) out of 157,300,000 registered voters nationwide.
You don’t need to “amend the Electoral College” to do this. Each state can choose how it’s electors are selected. Most of them have chosen to use a winner-take-all system, based off their vote, but Maine and Nebraska already do something like what you suggest here, and other states could join them if they so desired. Most states just don’t want to.
Sure, I meant amend the Constitution to require that method nationwide. I know it has little chance of success, but probably more than going to a straight popular vote would.
Ahh, I see. Yeah, given that only two out of 50 states have chosen to select their electors this way, I can’t imagine all that many getting on board with an amendment to force the issue. Maybe if the numbers were flipped, and we had 48 states using a proportional system of some sort, and only a couple of hold-outs, maybe an amendment could be passed.