Supreme Court deciding Faithless Electors in the Electoral College case.

Your opinion doesn't matter.

 

The electors themselves are superfluous. They used electors because of the limitations of travel and communications at the time. They could just call the electors a vote. Smaller states have more votes proportionately than larger states.

 

I don't think it would put the Republican Party out of business. It would, however, put Trump out of business. And any future candidate like him. But the GOP has won in the past and can win in the future, the popular vote. I think they will come out of the Trump administration very scarred, but in good shape to reconstruct under the base of sensible alternatives, after they get rid of the Trump dead-weight that will be left behind.

 

There is not even uniformity as to how ELECTORS are chosen with each state legislature deciding who represents their state to elect our president. It is an entire election process fraught with the potential for corruption. It makes a mockery of democracy.

 

Your opinion doesn't matter.

 

They used electors because they were the ones who knew best the needs and characteristic of every district and would be best suited to decide who should be President. Both Hamilton and Madison were disgusted when they saw how the original intent was distorted.

 

Sure. There's the state of denial of some people, for example

 

But they did not make them proportional to the number of people in the state.

 

And the worst aspect is we SPEND A FORTUNE ON A NATIONAL ELECTION which does not elect anyone for the office of PRESIDENT OR VICE PRESIDENT. WASTING TAX MONEY!!!

 

It’s a good thing we are not a democracy then.

 

Yet we tell the world we are????

 

No we are a constitutional republic based upon democratic principles.

 

"We"?
No.
Just those who don't know what they're talking about.

 

It's hard to believe this didn't work for leftists.

 

Inaccuracies?

https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention

The EC was a slap-dash plan enacted because the founders were unable to agree on anything else. It is archaic and we have long outgrown it. Worse, it gives the less populated states more power than is fair, and not just in choosing the executive.

For example, Wyoming has fewer than 800,000 residents and the minimum EC vote count of 3. That comes to one EC vote for every 266,666 residents. California has nearly 40 million residents, but only 55 EC votes, which is one EC vote for every 8 million residents. That gives Wyoming a 30 to 1 advantage over California.

For those who choose to live in rural states, I'm sure that seems fair, but it means that millions of voters in states like California, New York, Illinois, and Texas are disenfrachised every four years and may as well not bother voting. That seems very wrong to me.

We are one country, like it or not. One person, one vote. The cities are where the work is, so it's only logical that most of us live in cities. Why punish us for that?

 

Because we are a confederation or union of states. Do you think states like NC or VT or RI or Mass would have EVER agreed to enter into the union without the electoral college? Of course not. It was needed because otherwise those tiny states have what amounts to ZERO say in the running of the country and for a large part their state and their citizens if we simply use a popular vote.

And if they have little to no say in how their state was run and how their citizens were governed they might as well have just stayed under British rule.

 

Mass and N.Carolina are both very populated states in comparison with many much larger in area states.

 

Whatever you get the point.

 

Yes. To wit:

This is absolute, unsupportable nonsense - nothing in the constitutional provisions for the EC created, demanded, or even suggested such a requirement.

Your opinion doesn't matter.

No more than Congress - same representation.

False equivalence - the people of WY do not vote in CA and vice versa; nothing in their elections are comparable, other than each person's vote counts the same as every other person's.

Absolute nonsense - their votes determine the winner of their state; that more people than necessary for a candidate to win vote for that candidate in no way disenfranchises anyone.

Like it or not, the states, through 50 elections (plus DC) elect the President.
In each of those elections, one person has the same one vote.

 

Not according to the Constitution.

 

And right after that it says 'of the United States'.

 

Nope you had to own land not a slave.

 

Have any of you ever seen a list of the ELECTORS from your state??? I don't recall ever seeing such a list and I am 79 and have lived and voted in 3 different states???

 

Really? Huh! And I thought it said "of the Democratic Republic of Congo". Thank God we had you to clarify that for.... whatever reason....

 

Either you missed the point it you didn't understand it. .