It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Gryphon66
Every State currently awards its Electors based on the popular vote. The first place winner takes ALL the Electors.
Nebraska and Maine aren't states?
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Teikiatsu
Alternatively I wouldn't mind if we actually had the Electors on the ballots instead of the Presidential candidates, and those Electors pledged who they would vote for up front.
That's pretty close to how we do it here. The ballot contains the name of the elector and the person he/she has pledged to support.
Of course, the other side of that is that nobody really knows who the elector is, and no one I know actually considers the elector when casting their vote. They go for the name of the Presidential candidate supported. The electors are usually politically active people from the Montgomery area who see their name on the ballot as some sort of reward for their party allegiance. I can only suppose they use their trip to DC on the taxpayer's dime to drum up some lobby money or work on their networking skills for a future political campaign.
I honestly don't know if they are allowed to change their vote after becoming elector.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
Just remember, your disagreement doesn’t make me wrong.
Right, the way Senators are elected changed. You may also have heard we no longer consider Black Americans as 3/5ths of a person. We evolve over time and change ... like changing the way we assign Electors at the State level, eh?
The President is elected by popular vote. How does one win a slate of Electors in a State? Stop obfusticating.
In fact, the only office in the country that is NOT directly elected by the people of the United States is the President ... which is why I said that making a change toward proportional representation at the State level would bring the EC more in line with the rest of our practices.
You have referenced our previous discussions and so have I.
Please don’t suggest that you don’t claim that somehow, magically, the EC protects the few from the many, the poor struggling “Red States” from the populous “Blue” inner cities.
Show me a system that preserves the integrity of every vote without scrapping the Electoral College.
My way is not the only way, only the most fair I have yet conceived. But please, stop with this full-throated praise for a system that perpetuates the two party hegemony and excludes any possibility of us ever getting out of the mess we have ourselves in.
If we allowed voting for the elector it would create a situation similar to the district methods that Nebraska and Maine have, while creating transparency to poeple that they are not actually voting directly for the President themselves.
Northern non-slave states wanted non-free people to not count at all towards representation. At all. Zero. Goose-egg. In other words, "0/5 of a person." I suppose they were rampaging racists huh? And the Southern slave states wanted their non-free people to count as 5/5 towards representation. How enlightened they were, huh? Not racist at all...
The popular vote in a State is indeed the majority influence on how the Electors vote, I have never said otherwise. But is not a mandate.
The electoral college does not promote the two-party system. Ignorance and apathy of the masses is what promotes the system.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
I was under the impression that every state held votes for electors and not directly for the President. That's not to say I am surprised to hear some states don't place the electors' names in the ballot, just that I had never considered the vote being for the President directly.
In some states it is [mandated], by state law. I'm not sure about Alabama... need to look that up.
That was pointed out in the 2016 fiasco. Certain states could not have their votes changed by the electors, while others could. The Clinton campaign concentrated on those who could.
Technically yes they do, but every Presidential ballot I have ever seen lists the name of the Presidential candidate and perhaps their running mate.