[Alberta's Child]

When this country was founded there was no consistent method for choosing electors. Some of them were elected, some were appointed by state legislatures, etc. Also, let's remember that the Constitution seems to be written in a way that suggests the founders expected most presidents to be elected in the special election in Congress, not in the initial Electoral College vote.

With all this in mind, it's hard to tell what the founders would think of what we have today.

At least now, if the candidate decides to murder his entire family on live TV after being elected, we have a way for to get avoid putting him in office.

This has nothing to do with the electoral vote. He would be subject to criminal prosecution under the laws of the state where this occurred.

[Jaded]

Unless it’s hillary.

[arrogantsob]

“...the Constitution seems to be written in a way that suggests the founders expected most presidents to be elected in the special election in Congress, not in the initial Electoral College vote.” On what do you base this belief?

[deport]

I’m not a history buff but here is a link to an article explaining the
12th Amendment and the history that led to the ratification in 1801.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-xii

[JediJones]

Criminal prosecution doesn’t create an avenue to stop the inauguration of a winning candidate. The only thing Congress could do without the electors changing their vote is impeach him after inauguration.