Good God i’ts simple. The country’s name is the United States. “States” implying a degree of sovereignity to all its members. The founding fathers had the wisdom to reconize that the major cities had greater voting power but did not necessarily think the country should be governed from its population centers.
This chart enumerates the electoral vote breakdown for all USA Presidential elections from 1789 to 2000. Check the footnotes for such tidbits as the fact that in 1956, one of Alabama’s electoral votes ostensibly allotted to Democrat Adlai Stevenson was instead cast for Walter B. Jones.
Throughout this thread this question was asked but I’ve yet to see an answer. Most answers I saw were actually about the electoral college not the electors.
I know why we have the electoral college but why electors? If a candidate wins the required amount of electoral votes why are electors needed to cast those same votes and why do they have the option of changing the votes that the people cast? Also we know the hierarchy of accendance if the president elect drops dead.
So does anyone have a good answer?
There is probably not actually a single GQ answer. To begin with, before telegrams, someone actually needed to go to the Capitol and place their votes. Also, it was originally intended that the Electors would be free to vote their conscience. The idea that electors should just rubber stamp the popular vote came later. Furthermore, it was mentioned above, but with the threat of faithless electors it’s better to spread those votes around than to entrust them to any one person (the governor, or state speaker of the house, or whoever). Finally, there’s the idea that these people act as a check on a misguided majority. We’ve had several threads this month calling for the EC to defect and prevent Trump from taking office, for example.
The GQ answer to this zombie is that that is what the constitution provides and it would require an amendment to change it.
Originally, it was anticipated that the EC would be a kind of nominating convention and the real election would take place in the house, each state having one vote. Of course, it never really worked that way. There were a lot of compromises made to get at least 9 states to give up their sovereignity or enough of it anyway to go from a weak to strong union. And the small states were especially afraid they would be overwhelmed by the big ones.
We do know their names.
Which electors bring the pie?
No, but Democratic supporters might consider bringing some, you never can tell.
But, wouldn’t a fully proportional system guarantee that the president is from the same party as the majority of the House of Representatives? Which is approximately Parliamentary, which is what the Republican system was trying to get away from, by separating the executive branch?
NPR just posted a good article on this. MAILBAG: Could 'Faithless Electors' Keep Donald Trump Out Of The White House? : NPR
Apparently 9 “faithless electors” in the last 100 years.
Would need 37 electors to change their votes for Trump to lose…
Changing to a proportional electoral vote (which was rejected in Colorado in 2004) would not change the way the House is elected, so no, not necessarily. If every state had used a proportional system in 2012, Obama would have still been elected president even though the new House of Representatives retained its Republican majority.
Why would that happen ?
Because a party faithful may be faithful to the party, except when it comes to voting for the candidate they dislike … the Candidate they expected to lose …but won… they might not be able to bring themselves to be faithfull in Washington.
At least 37 people might be faithless.
Court cases that result may well see the system demolished… because Clinton has the majority of the peoples votes… a court decision may find the electoral college system unworkable and unfair … so as to be non democratic… with fairness of democracy being common law.
What happens if the faithless electors from faithlfull elector law states decide the matter ?
Can a state decide what happens in Washington ? Can a states power be extra territorial ?
Maybe I don’t understand what "proportional"means, then. If each congressional district had one elector, there would be a strong party correlation between votes for presidential elector and votes for the one House member in that district. Which would dilute the separation of legislative and executive branch. Not completely, there would still be outliers, but there would be a much closer correlation.
The proportional system rejected in Colorado would have based the number of electors received by a candidate on their percentage of the statewide vote. It wouldn’t have used districts at all.
A lot of people like the Sovereign Citizen Movement treat common law like it is the supreme law of the land (at least when it’s convenient), but in reality in the United States it is quite the opposite. When the Constitution clearly and explicitly addresses an issue, that takes precedence over any so-called common law.
Now, sometimes courts squirm around inconvenient Constitutional provisions and find penumbras or just explain them away (does the First Amendment allow citizens to shout “Fire” in a theater?), but this is not done under the pretense that there is some superior common law right.
But the Constitution does explicitly say the President shall be chosen by an Electoral College and how many electors each state shall have. The courts could no more declare that to be undemocratic than they could declare giving California and Idaho the same number of Senators is unfair and undemocratic and that therefore the Senate must be abolished.
That pretty much says it. But the court could declare “faithless elector” laws unconstitutional.