Quote:
“And third, did you know that the Constitution does not even require that those electors vote in accordance with how they are directed to vote, by either the legislator or voters? Under federal law, they can vote however they want.”
Well Mr. Rove, I think that something like 30 states have “faithless electors” laws. Laws meant to address the “smoke-filled back room” political processes of the last century.
But whatever. It’s obvious that many want to continue corrupt, sleazy political practices so their candidate can “win” an election so the “DC Cartel” continues the Gravy Train in perpetuity.
I want to be clear -- I do not support all of those things. My suggestions would be:
1) no winner take all primaries;
2) candidates get to put forth their own delegate slates so that their chosen delegate gets the slot if they win that district; 3) delegates at the Convention would be required to vote for the candidate for whom they were chosen as long as that candidate was among the top two vote-getters on the last ballot.
I think that would be the fairest way to ensure that the overall will of the voters is reflected at the Convention.
My comments on the Constitution are simply in response to people who rage that this whole process is contrary to the Constitution, and/or inconsistent with a more direct system of elections supposedly endorsed by the Founders. I'm simply pointing out what the Constitution says on the issue, not arguing that it presents the best framework for modern President primary elections (though I think there are good arguments it was the best system for the time).
Also, while it's pretty clear that my preferred system is not what we have right now, I'm not sympathetic to Trump whining about it. he's already gotten a higher proportion of delegates than votes, and he knew about these rules before the contest started.
The people who should be pissed are voters within their individual states, who hopefully will be more active in future party politics to change the systems.