Replies

Here's a disquieting thought: Will the "free-range delegate" concept we see today in the headlines also be a factor again in the general election? Should we be afraid, very afraid, of Electoral College electors being corrupted? Almost half the states permit "free-range electors." (Read more at the link for details.)

I cannot remember this being a significant issue in any previous election in my lifetime; but some things are different now:

From caucus activists to the country's top conservative commentators, influential people are promoting the idea that allowing the voting intentions of the general public to make it all the way through the system and affect the result is a slippery slope to mob rule. These are the oligarchs whose battle cry is "We're not a democracy!"
These same activists and commentators are trying to socialize the free-range delegate concept, getting the public used to it so that it will not be seen as "cheating."
Candidates who have the ethics to avoid gaming the system in this way are being ridiculed as chumps who "haven't gone to the effort to learn the rules," and are therefore not qualified for the office.
As the tutorial states: "Generally, the political parties nominate Electors at their State party conventions or by a vote of the party’s central committee in each State." This sounds a lot like the GOPe. If the GOPe wants to throw the election to Hillary, this would be an easy way to do it.

A few months ago, we would have all said "They wouldn't dare!" But nowadays?

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States

For that matter, there is no Constitutional provision or Federal law which provides for people in their states voting to choose Electors in the first place.

The method of choosing Electors is entirely at the discretion of State Legislatures, a "Presidential election" is neither required nor necessary.

The electors are chosen by each party. Technically they are elected on election day. If a state is carried by the Democrat, then it will be the Democrat electors who vote in the electoral college. Its not as if electors are standing by to see who their state votes for to see who they will support in the electoral college. It will be party loyalists from the winning political party who cast the actual electoral votes.

First of all, the constitution doesn’t set any restrictions on how the electors can vote other than the the P and VP candidates they vote for can’t be from the same state. So laws binding electors to statewide winners are unconstitutional. Loyal party members are chosen to be electors for a reason.

Second of all, under no circumstances would Republican electors vote for Hillary. Even going along with this ridiculous idea, they would vote for a RINO, throwing the election to the House so it could elect that RINO. But that’s not gonna happen either.

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote.

That is because the Founders distrusted democracy and didn't anticipate that the people would actually be electing the president. Their vision was that the people would send the most informed citizens in their state to make the choice.

Occasionally, an elector defects. In 1976, one Ford elector (I think in Washington state) voted for Reagan, and four years earlier, a Nixon elector voted Libertarian.

Of course, it's never done, but you can always run a slate of unpledged electors, if you can get enough signatures -- and it's a way around "sore loser" laws.