• @[email protected]
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    483 months ago

    The fun thing is that on paper that’s what the electoral college was supposed to prevent.

    • JackbyDev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      93 months ago

      Is it? I know this is a theoretical possibility, but do electors even have the right to vote against what their state is having them do? Did any of the “founding fathers” talk about this as a benefit?

      • @MimicJar
        link
        103 months ago

        do electors even have the right to vote against what their state is having them do?

        It depends on the state, but the term is “faithless elector”.

        Some states allow for them, some immediately replace them if they don’t vote as instructed.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        63 months ago

        When it was created, the electors were not limited to state discretion.

        Honestly, what really sold the idea of electors was the “past the post” number. The founders were reluctant to use any system other than ‘Congress picks the president’, but became convinced that so many people would be running for president, each state’s electors would vote for “their state’s guy” and the house of reps would get to choose anyway. Meanwhile we could claim to have a system where the people choose.

        • @grue
          link
          English
          53 months ago

          The founders were reluctant to use any system other than ‘Congress picks the president’

          Exactly, and the compromise they eventually settled on was “state legislatures collectively pick the president.”

          The idea of Electors was simply a result of that, as a workaround for the fact that “one state legislator, one vote” wouldn’t work because different states had them representing different numbers of constituents.

          It was not initially intended for Electors to be chosen by popular vote.