4 ms·

Whats the point of having actual human electors if they can't be faithless? Couldn't the Founding Fathers just say tally up the electoral votes if a mechanical

Whats the point of having actual human electors if they can't be faithless? Couldn't the Founding Fathers just say tally up the electoral votes if a mechanical transition from popular to electoral votes was desired?

ColanR 7y ago
That was the precise idea - and in an age when riding from the states to DC could take a month or more, the mechanism for that tally was electors who physically travelled to DC, and were sworn to vote as they were directed by the populace.
- microcolonel 7y ago
  > ...sworn to vote as they were directed by the populace. And probably would've been beaten to death or hanged in public for the wrong form of dereliction of that duty. ;- )
  - imustbeevil 7y ago
    Which could also be said for electors voting against their local interests in favor of their state's interests. Who's the derelict if everyone who lives within a 50 mile radius votes one way but the state goes another? That's the point of electors; states getting all of them for free should be the outlier.
    - microcolonel 7y ago
      Hence the careful wording “the wrong form”. Just like other middleman, the elector is in a tough spot.
- cybersnowflake 7y ago
  Thats pretty odd to specify Electors who would vote then. Could have just said tally up the votes into EC votes and then the same man in a funny wig would still be dispatched to report in. Seems a pretty stupid convoluted way to go about it if what you're saying is correct
- teilo 7y ago
  Proof? We do have records of the arguments that were made for the elector system mandated by the Constitution, and they demonstrate that your "precise idea" is a fabrication. Here is some reading for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68 It had almost nothing to do with the practicality (or lack thereof) of the popular vote. The debates focused upon balancing the right of the people with the right of the states, i.e., the ability of states with large populations to make the votes of smaller states irrelevant. Hamilton also focused on the need for trusted electors so that the people both had a say, and trusted individuals could avoid rash populism. I.e., the value of a representative form of election. The transient nature of the college was also important. The electors would have one task, and then be dismissed. They could not be people with a vested interest, such as members of congress, governors, etc. This also made them less likely to be influenced by foreign powers, as they would not be electors long enough to be so influenced.
  - cmurf 7y ago
    There is nothing in 68 about states rights or relative populations. Central to 68 is the connection between regular citizen voters choosing Electors, directly, amongst themselves. They were to be deliberative, self-evidently independent from partisan party politics, chosen from the general population Federalist 68 proposes a mechanism we have not used since before the Civil War. The ballot would have been write-in only, and the name you were writing in was a person who lived in your own state, not a presidential candidate. but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE Unfortunately, the Founders appear to not have anticipated the wholesale corruption the party system would employ to sabotage both common sense and deliberate design, by making laws at state level to explicitly make Electors not from the general population but exclusively party loyalists: people who have sworn money and allegiance to their respective party. Who and what you are really voting for when you tick a box for a candidate, is not the candidate, but the candidate's party and that party system, and the state laws say the popular vote result is to cause that party's pre-selected loyalists to become Electors. What we have isn't anything like Federalist 68.
- cmurf 7y ago
  The Electors never traveled. The state Electors deliberated amongst themselves in their own state, and submitted the result of their deliberation to the Congress.
fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
Juries are supposed to work the same way[0], in practice judges will throw you out of court if you tell the jurors about it. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
- salawat 7y ago
  It's a controversial thing sadly, likely due to the effects it can have on precedent. I can see why it makes judges nervous. Personally, I think it's a necessary balance to Prosecutorial discretion however.
- bliblah 7y ago
  Here is a youtube video on the subject by one of my favorite content creators: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ

ColanR 7y ago

That was the precise idea - and in an age when riding from the states to DC could take a month or more, the mechanism for that tally was electors who physically travelled to DC, and were sworn to vote as they were directed by the populace.

microcolonel 7y ago
> ...sworn to vote as they were directed by the populace. And probably would've been beaten to death or hanged in public for the wrong form of dereliction of that duty. ;- )
- imustbeevil 7y ago
  Which could also be said for electors voting against their local interests in favor of their state's interests. Who's the derelict if everyone who lives within a 50 mile radius votes one way but the state goes another? That's the point of electors; states getting all of them for free should be the outlier.
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    Hence the careful wording “the wrong form”. Just like other middleman, the elector is in a tough spot.
cybersnowflake 7y ago
Thats pretty odd to specify Electors who would vote then. Could have just said tally up the votes into EC votes and then the same man in a funny wig would still be dispatched to report in. Seems a pretty stupid convoluted way to go about it if what you're saying is correct
teilo 7y ago
Proof? We do have records of the arguments that were made for the elector system mandated by the Constitution, and they demonstrate that your "precise idea" is a fabrication. Here is some reading for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68 It had almost nothing to do with the practicality (or lack thereof) of the popular vote. The debates focused upon balancing the right of the people with the right of the states, i.e., the ability of states with large populations to make the votes of smaller states irrelevant. Hamilton also focused on the need for trusted electors so that the people both had a say, and trusted individuals could avoid rash populism. I.e., the value of a representative form of election. The transient nature of the college was also important. The electors would have one task, and then be dismissed. They could not be people with a vested interest, such as members of congress, governors, etc. This also made them less likely to be influenced by foreign powers, as they would not be electors long enough to be so influenced.
- cmurf 7y ago
  There is nothing in 68 about states rights or relative populations. Central to 68 is the connection between regular citizen voters choosing Electors, directly, amongst themselves. They were to be deliberative, self-evidently independent from partisan party politics, chosen from the general population Federalist 68 proposes a mechanism we have not used since before the Civil War. The ballot would have been write-in only, and the name you were writing in was a person who lived in your own state, not a presidential candidate. but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE Unfortunately, the Founders appear to not have anticipated the wholesale corruption the party system would employ to sabotage both common sense and deliberate design, by making laws at state level to explicitly make Electors not from the general population but exclusively party loyalists: people who have sworn money and allegiance to their respective party. Who and what you are really voting for when you tick a box for a candidate, is not the candidate, but the candidate's party and that party system, and the state laws say the popular vote result is to cause that party's pre-selected loyalists to become Electors. What we have isn't anything like Federalist 68.
cmurf 7y ago
The Electors never traveled. The state Electors deliberated amongst themselves in their own state, and submitted the result of their deliberation to the Congress.

fuzz4lyfe 7y ago

Juries are supposed to work the same way[0], in practice judges will throw you out of court if you tell the jurors about it. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

salawat 7y ago
It's a controversial thing sadly, likely due to the effects it can have on precedent. I can see why it makes judges nervous. Personally, I think it's a necessary balance to Prosecutorial discretion however.
bliblah 7y ago
Here is a youtube video on the subject by one of my favorite content creators: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ