The next big Repub scam, the Electorial College?

[JAYJDF]

I was just reading a DU post here and this scary thought just came to mind. I believe the electorial college representatives are suppose to vote according to how their areas voted, but, I don't think they have to. In fact, I believe on a small scale that has happened before. If this scenario is possible, then, what's to keep the Repubs from buying key electorial college votes next prez election? You know, to keep them in control.

[SaveElmer]

1. Unlikely...

Electors are picked by the parties among party faithful...as a reward for supporting the party...it is very rare to have a faithless elector....

[rinsd]

6. it has happened 156 times according to this website

http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/faithless.htm

"Since the founding of the Electoral College, there have been 156 faithless Electors. 71 of these votes were changed because the original candidate died before the day on which the Electoral College cast their votes. Three of the votes were not cast at all as three Electors chose to abstain from casting their Electoral vote for any candidate. The other 82 Electoral votes were changed on the personal initiative of the Elector.

Sometimes Electors change their votes in large groups, such as when 23 Virginia Electors acted together in 1836. Many times, however, these Electors stood alone in their decision. As of the 2000 election, no Elector has changed the outcome of an election by voting against their party’s designated candidate.

Despite these 156 faithless votes, and a Supreme Court ruling allowing states to empower political parties to require formal pledges from Presidential Electors (Ray v Blair, 343 US 214), 21 states still do not require their members of the Electoral College to vote for their party's designated candidate.

The 24 states that do have requirements issue a small variety of rarely enforced punishments for faithless Electors, including fines and misdemeanors."

More at the link

[SaveElmer]

8. Most of these of course...

Were early when the founders actually meant for electors to exercise their own judgement. The 1800 election began to change that notion.

In modern times it is extremely rare for their to be faithless electors, and of course as you not it has never changed an election outcome.

[Totally Committed]

2. That's why we need to have a straight popular vote...

and the Electoral COllege needs to be abolished. Completely.

I wouldn't mind seeing a multi-Party system then replace the current two-Party system. But, first the Electoral College has to be abolished.

TC

[sharp_stick]

3. I agree with you on this

I know some people from small States still like it because it gives them a disproportionate amount of power over the Presidency but I think a one vote system is a bit more democratic.

[yourout]

4. A true multi-Party system will never happen without Instant Runoff Voting.

And I seriously doubt either the Dems or the Pukes will allow that to happen.

[JAYJDF]

5. Some additional researched info

http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecmenu2.htm

There have been 7 such electors in this century, as recently as 1988

Given the scope of Repub tricks, why isn't this possible?

[TheVirginian]

9. For many reasons...

First, like somebody above mentioned, electors are usually chosen by the party, so if the '08 Dem candidate won, for instance, Maryland, a Maryland Democrat would be chosen to be an elector, somebody who has proven they're loyalty to the party and is rewarded with the responsibility.

Second, 29 states require by law their electors to vote for the winner of the state.

Third, it would be the single greatest scandal in political history, and the new president would face overwhelming lack of support from the American people and Congress, and would have little power to do anything.

Fourth, because of reason #3, impeachment proceedings would probably begin near the beginning of Congress's first session.

[Sapere aude]

7. I'm wondering how they plan to hold onto power in 2008. I can't see Bush

making laws to detain Americans without trial when he only has half a term remaining. I a moderate repuke or a Dem becomes president they would not uphold such a law because the SCOTUS said it was unconstitutional.

They must have a plan to win in 2006 and 2008. They say they do not have to obey any laws so why should they obey election laws?

[JAYJDF]

10. All I'm saying is, they have been brazen enough to jam phones,

rig voting machines, and delay any recounts. There has to be something next. I'm happy to hear other guesses or opinions on their next move.