Except the electors voting for.Clinton would not be changing the rules. The rules are that the electors can vote for whoever they want. So voting for Clinton wouldn’t be changing the rules in the middle of the game, this has been the rule since 1787.
If the electors voted for Clinton despite the vote, I’m sure there would be outrage. But it would be perfectly Contitutional. And I’m sure after Clinton took office we could get a constitutional amendment passed in record time so this would never happen again.
But it’s all academic since the Republican electors are all going to vote for Trump and this is just a fantasy.
If you take that approach, you have to take the bad with the good: the “certain system” allows electors to defy the will of their states, just as it allows them to defy the will of the population at large. It doesn’t make sense to look at only half the system.
Me, I’d throw the whole thing out: not only is the bathwater filthy, the baby is ugly as sin.
I take your point, but the laws that several states have enacted against faithless electors and the very nearly universal understanding that we are voting for electors who are apportioned mostly by number of Representatives but also with a minimum number and by Senators as well, would seem to me to indicate that “the system” is set up not to allow the EC to overrule the will of the people, even if a Trump gets elected. And even though Hillary got more of the popular vote.
The merits or otherwise of the EC are a different thread. The candidates pick their electors in the several states based on a promise that those electors will vote for that candidate, if he wins that state. (With some variations - states can pick their own way of allocating electors under the Constitution). The electors could break their promise, and there would be lawsuits aplenty if it affected the election, and it does not seem to me to be a settled question that enough faithless electors could overrule the result. It could happen - but that is not exactly the same as saying it is legitimate. If that makes any sense.
Maybe that’s a distinction without a difference, but, as Lemur866 says, it won’t happen.
Is that a desirable goal? There are more people living in Texas than there are living in all six New England states combined. So why shouldn’t the twenty-five million people living in Texas be able to outvote the fifteen million people living in New England?
From Federalist 68, The Mode of Electing The President
From Federalist 62, The Senate
The intent was that qualified electors would be selected, and the electors would then pick the President. The intent was not that voters would pick the President, so there was no need for the electors to act as some kind of check on the will of the people. Article 2 Section 1 (#-of-Electors = #-of-Reps + #-of-Senators) was just a specific compromise that came from a more general compromise to balance the competing desires of proportional and equal representation of the States.
Since that’s not how we effectively do things today, the intent outlined in Federalist 68 is not really relevant anymore. But that was the original intent.
Hypothetically, let’s say Trump does something especially egregious before December 19th, or some past offense leads to him being arrested. Or perhaps more simply, he just dies of natural causes.
Could the Electoral College plausibly choose Clinton instead? Would they be bound to elect Pence? Could they do both; Clinton as President, Pence as Veep?
Do you seriously expect the Constitution to be a 1000 page essay on the structure of the United States Federal government, and the reasons why it should be that way? That’s what the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers were.
You asked “What’s the Electoral College for…” and many posters have provided the factual answers. If you want to then argue that those reasons are misguided, no longer relevant, or whatever, that’s fine. Your posts indicate you believe that there was some intent for Electors to serve as a check against the people, that you’re “sure this isn’t a matter of legislative error”. I and others have pointed out there was no indication that this was ever a design intent, and provided relevant evidence.
Even if it were the intent of the founders, it wouldn’t matter because that element has been amended. Not by a Constitutional Amendment, because the Constitution doesn’t require one to change the way that the electors are chosen and given their mandate. That particular element of governance was expressly delegated to the individual states, and the individual states have all decided that the electors for their state should be selected in a way that minimizes or forbids opportunities for the electors to override the popular vote in their state.
Arguing about it now is like arguing that the Founders didn’t intend the Senate to be elected by the people, didn’t intend to eliminate slavery, or didn’t intend women to vote. So what?
Do you seriously expect the Constitution to be a 1000 page essay on the structure of the United States Federal government, and the reasons why it should be that way? That’s what the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers were.
…QUOTE]
No. What I expect is that a request for a cite of constitutionality be replied to with a cite from the Constitution.
That’s a common misapprehension. It’s true that the writers of the Federalist Papers and other documents like those were writing about the Constitution. But their motive was not general education. Both sides had a specific position they were trying to advance - whether to ratify or reject the Constitution - and they were writing towards that purpose.
So we need to keep in mind that what Madison or Hamilton (or Clinton or Henry) wrote wasn’t necessarily their true opinions about the Constitution. They were writing what were essentially sales pitches aimed at swaying popular opinion.
Trump has said, maybe correctly, that he could have won a popular vote if that was the endgame all along. He’d have campaigned differently. How much time did he spend in California or New York? Probably a lot less than in Pennsylvania and Michigan. But if he needed sheer numbers, that would have been different.
So no, the electoral college does not exist to stop Trump.
Except what you’re asking is not the text of the Constitution. The Constitution itself doesn’t usually explain the reasoning behind any particular clause, it usually just states the clause. There are a few exceptions (“A well regulated militia…”). But the Constitution does not explain that the purpose of the Electoral College is to give small states more representation, nor does it explain that the purpose is to act as a check on democracy.
The idea that it was a check against democracy is not very well supported, since the method for a state to chose electors is up to the state. It is true that in the modern era all states choose electors by holding a vote, and the person who wins the vote gets the electors. But in the past state legislatures often chose the electors, just like they chose Senators.
So asking for a cite from the Constitution is impossible. The best you can get are statements by the people who drafted the Constitution explaining their reasoning, not the Constitution itself.
It really is not. My request for a citation from the Constitution was in response to a post that made a clear claim of what the Electoral College “is there to do”:
If this is not actually contained in the Constitution, then it is merely interpretation. Hence my challenge.
Again, as Little Nemo said, the Federalist Papers are not an explanation of the reasoning of “the people who drafted the Constitution.” They are the sales job Hamilton, Madison, and Jay came up with to convince the various states to ratify a document that had many critics throughout those states. The essays are propaganda, not a Cliff’s Notes for the Constitution.
Boyo Jim has a point: Many people say that the Electoral College should be retained, as a check on the power of direct democracy, but then say that the EC shouldn’t overturn any electoral result because that would lead to mayhem. That’s like saying that the President should have the power to veto bills passed by Congress - but then also saying that the President should never use such veto power, because it would contravene the will of Congress and the people.