Lex,
Oh no, that's not it at all.
No concession here. I'm just done with it after this comment. So, flame away at my reply if you wish. It's been my experience that when a debater starts throwing around mindless insults at the other debater, any hope of carrying on a civilized discussion goes up in a puff of smoke. Time to turn the lights off, pack it up and go have a drink. So be it.
Besides, this issue hasn't been definitively resolved in the courts yet. The 2000 SCOTUS action didn't even address the Electors in the 21 states that allow their Electors to vote in the manner stated in the Constitution, and, it was quite vague on other issues it addressed at the time anyway. Nothing's engraved in stone yet.
Some of the founders personal writings, plus transcripts of the pre-Constitutional arguments and the Convention debates indicate that that option (to allow the Electors to vote their own consciences) was written into the Constitution precisely to address situations such as those that have occurred today. They feared that a charismatic fanatic could charm his way in to the Presidency under the right circumstances, as had happened countless times in past civilizations. They knew that a demagogue like that could destroy the Republic that so many had fought and died for, so they could be allowed to create that Republic. So, it was argued that that single power granted to the Electors could, in itself, prevent such a catastrophe from happening at some point in time.
The typical voter casts their ballot via their emotional beliefs anyway. Whether examining the 18th Century voter, or the 21st Century voter, most were then, and are now, pitifully uninformed. They cared/care little or nothing about the facts or the truth. Only about their opinions and beliefs - no matter how flawed. Even outward appearances hold more weight than the truth. What color is his tie? Her dress? Is it before or after Labor Day? On and on. The debates are a joke. All fluff. No substance. News is based solely on the quest for higher and higher ratings, not actual content.
Pre-Internet, the vast majority of our population was hampered, mostly, by their lack of information. In this post-Internet age, that same group is hampered by an even greater enemy - the overabundance of misinformation that has become indiscernible from the truly factual information that we all desperately need in order to make rational and intelligent decisions. Even the simplest meme, overlaid with the most outrageous, outright lie plastered all over it can be read, liked, shared, and believed by millions in only a matter of hours. But, the truth, researched and documented, with facts and sources, that can completely refute that lie will typically spread like molasses on a cold Winters night. Lies are usually much more attractive to us than the truth. Lies can have infinite permutations of events and details that can be tweaked and shuffled into a combination that is the most entertaining and the most believable scenario. The truth has only one single and often boring scenario. There can be no tweaking of the truth. It just "is" what it "is"- warts and all. It's truly a sad situation that we've allowed a tool with such enormous potential to regress into a monster that manipulates every corner of our lives so easily. It's worse than any drug out there. We can't put the Genie back in the bottle. We'll just have to learn how to live with him, it seems.
That being said, all we can do is speculate as to how Presidential elections could play out, both now and in the future. I'm sure there are already volumes and volumes written on this subject – and more to come - with dozens of outcomes that each writer is somehow able to "prove" that his/hers opinion is the only one that's even possible. But, until one of our Presidential elections is tested in the courts at some point, this is all open to interpretation by whoever wants to claim it's their Constitutional right to interpret the Constitution themselves. Any "facts" we want to find are available to us somewhere with only a few clicks of a mouse. Anyone can "prove" anything they want to prove.
I have my beliefs. You have yours. Never the twain shall meet.
Cognitive Dissonance at it's finest - so, I can no longer see any benefit in taking this further.
I wish you well. Stay safe :-)
Originally Posted by OldManRon
Too many problems with this to allow it to pass without scrutiny.
First, the decision in 2000 had nothing to do with unfaithful electors so why bring it up. In fact, I also disagree that the decision was vague. It was very specific; can a state change election law after the election has begun. Florida's court was saying that they could change the parameters of voting, recounts, absentee ballots, and voter qualifications after the election was in the counting phase. The US Supreme Court rules that the rules going into an election will be the rules that the election will finish under. Very simple and very specific.
The electoral collage, as we know it, was not part of the original Consitution. Once again, why bring up something that is not relevant? In the early days, the House voted for the president for the most part. The electoral college allowed each state to chose it's own electors who voted based on their conscience. Most of the time the votes were so split that it fell to the House to decide who would be president and vice-president. After the Jefferson-Burr elections changes had to be made. The electoral college results were made to be stronger but each state still decided how electors were to be chosen. Throughout the 19th century the electoral collage became what we know today. Each state choses a slate of electors based on the popular vote in the state.
Here is what could happen but it is very unlikely to happen. The GOP electors, having won the election, could leave en mass to vote for someone else like JEB Bush. Now they already have the votes (no danger there) and if the party is involved then there will be no punishment for being unfaithful. They could literally chose anyone. Now if some electors refuse and that would be very likely, no one would achieve 270 votes for the win. The election would go to the house who is required to vote for one of the top two vote getters (Hillary or Trump). So, in all likelihood, Trump would be chosen by the House.
