While I entirely support the existence of the electoral college, I still must speculate about what guides the individual electors. Are they legally bound to allocate their votes regardless of the wishes of the people? Are they allowed to utilize their own “judgement” at any point in the execution of their duties?
In previous threads I have vehemently supported the Electoral College as an institution that increases the leverage of each citizen in their (population or per capita) adjusted area. I continue to do so, even though I am compelled to speculate otherwise.
Anyway, I thought I’d bust open the cracker barrel of speculation with another inflammatory OP…
PS: Let’s remember that the Bush camp had assembled all sorts of potentially legal precedents to overturn a possible electoral-only vote against them in this election. We’ll pretend that they have shared this information with the Gore camp. (Do I ever feel weird posting this.)
As to the OP, I think they should. What they will do, however, is probably going to be quite different. I don’t believe they were selected because of their integrity (though I don’t deny it to any of them - I can’t name a single one). I would think that some elector, knowing that W lost the popular vote, and knowing / believing that he should have lost the Florida vote (i.e. the Buchanan ballot fiasco) would have on his / her conscience that Gore should win. A person of integrity, holding loyalty to the American people above loyalty to the party, should, IMHO, cross party lines and vote Gore. This, of course, depends on his / her honest belief that Gore technically won Florida. Another question to consider is which elector should do this? If (and I have no idea) the Electoral College votes in semi-secret (i.e. no other electors know what the others are voting for at the time) should an elector from another state switch votes, or leave it to the conscience of the Florida Electors?
Oh, I am quite certain you would feel the same way if the roles had been reversed as had been anticipated… NOT!
The reason for, IMHO, an electoral college, is that if a state falls highly to one party or the other, and the voters fail to show, the state will still cast it’s entire population to that candidate. If the vote was based on the popular vote, as perhaps it should be, it might actually encourage more people to vote. If people saw this as a risk, more people might show up.
However, if that is the system we have, then we should stick to it. The electorate has an absolute duty to represent the votes of their state. Any other behavior would be an insult to the democratic process and to the duty which they have taken.
Yes they should. And their conscience should tell them to honor the pledge they made when they were selected by their party to represent a particular state.
Slow down there J.A.G. I don’t think I’ve ever shown my political leanings on this board, and it is a bit quick of you to make that assumption.
Your own post actually backs up what I said. “The [E]lectorate has an absolute duty to represent the votes of their state.” Yes, and if (note that I am speaking hypothetically, that the conclusion is dependant on the veracity of this premise) an Elector sincerely believes that a greater percentage of the voting population of Florida intended to vote for Gore - than that Elector should put his/her ‘absolute duty to represent the votes of their state’ above their lesser duty to represent their interests to their political party.
Also, keep in mind that the OP presupposes that the Elector’s conscience tells him/her that Gore received more votes than Bush in the Florida election, but Bush’s Electors are awarded the right to cast ballots in December. The notion that this is true should be accepted as part of this thread. There are other places to debate who garnered the most votes in Florida, but Zenster didn’t ask that.
So, IF an Elector believes that a candidate won their states popular vote, than they should put loyalty to the democratic process above loyalty to a party.
Lastly, I’d like to reask my further hypothetical. Take Zenster’s OP as true (i.e. don’t argue with that part of the hypothetical) AND consider that an Electorate feels that s/he should vote with his/her conscience. What if the Electorate in Florida was prohibited by law from voting for anyone but Bush? Then can a moral argument be made that would support an Elector from a different Bush state switching his/her votes to Gore? I think there can be, but have to get some work done at the moment. Anyone?
I believe that both candidates are morally obliged to encourage a complete review of all votes made with the confusing "butterfly ballot’. Gore’s name was printed second on the ballot but the third hole had to be punched in order to vote for him.
All voters who ended up selecting Buchannan should be recontacted and interviewed as to their real voting intention. I think that there is relatively little risk of last minute switchovers from Buchannan to Gore.
Until this conflict is resolved with the greatest degree of diligence, the entire election remains undetermined. This is a critical juncture and should not be ignored. I would rather have this than an elector voting what they think their state would have voted. Let’s also examine the weird ballot issues in this thread as well.
This would be impossible, since ballots are secret. Even if it were possible I think this would be a very bad idea. What happens when a person is in the voting booth is considered sacred, and they should not be made to explain their vote. If you allowed it in this instance, you are opening the door. Imagine being a black voter in Mississippi in the 1960’s. Would you want an official calling you and asking if you’re sure you really meant to vote for thatcandidate? Even today, voting for the “wrong party” can have a huge impact on a person’s life. That is one of the reasons why ballots are secret.
We have a unique situation where voter intent is in question, and I am not implying that the Gore campaign would try to intimidate voters. However, you can’t set dangerous precedent based on unique situations. Hard cases make bad law.
D@mn good point there Chance!
Recent newscasts have now clearly shown that the sample ballot did not accurately reflect the configuration of the official ballot. The “butterfly ballot” was sufficiently confusing that this represents a viable mode of legal challenge IMO. This is really critical. Our elective process is being usurped!
I’ve seen several references to Bush plans to challenge the Electoral College vote, but haven’t seen any cites anywhere. I really doubt there are many precedents for ignoring both the letter and intent of the Constitution because it seems kind of foolish. The Harrison-Cleveland election would be an excellent counter-precedent. There is no legal basis for ignoring the Electoral College, and even the Bush camp must have realized.
Th electors need to vote the way their state votes- even tho I hope Gore gets FLA, but even if he does not, they need to vote properly. However, one way out of this mess would be to “free” the electors in FLA- but since they would be mostly party hacks, it would not really help.
Freedom: that ballot is illegal in FLA. The lack of complaints beforehand does not change its legality. The fact it may be used elsewhere- agaian does not change its legality. It is illegal. They should do a revote in that county.
the electorial college is an independent body with a huge amount of power.
yes, an electorial voter could choose to cast a “faithless vote.” it has been done before. few states have any penalties for a “faithless vote.” one ev voted for bentson instead of dukaksis (sp). they can even write in a person.
at this point i wouldn’t put anything past anyone. until the electorial college vote is tallied i wouldn’t rule anything out.
It’s not at all clear that those ballots violated Florida law. In this article Clay Roberts, director of the (Florida) State Division of Elections, is reported to have said on Wednesday that they were compliant.
State officials are reported to have said that the statues the Democrats are alleging the ballots violated applies only to absentee and other ballots marked without the benefit of a machine or other device to stick a punch card in.
The trouble with this is that the electors haven’t been selected yet, that’s what the election is all about. If Bush wins, the Republican party hacks are the electors. If Gore wins, the Democratic party hacks are the electors. Florida hasn’t selected the electors yet, so how can they be told to vote their conscience?
In the past, electors have changed their vote. For instance, in 1988, one elector voted for Lloyd Bentsen instead of Micheal Dukakis. No one gets too upset about it since it makes no difference. But now, if an elector changed their vote and it made a difference in the election they would be finished. If you think OJ is ostracized, this person would be the most hated person in america.
Oh, but the other party will lionize them? No. Any favors, any comfort the other party gives will be percieved as bribery.
But since these are party loyalists, they aren’t going to change their votes. If an elector changes their vote, then the candidate as good as stole the election. There would be a constitutional crisis. I can’t see them being able to govern after that…they might be impeached, who knows?
