this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
328 points (96.6% liked)
United States | News & Politics
1870 readers
294 users here now
Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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?
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
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.
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.