Election question - GoFuckYourself.com

Phil21 · 10-29-2004, 10:11 PM

I don't normally post too much, but hey.

Something has always somewhat bugged me, and I've found it amusing toying with the idea.

Many states (as of last election at least) do *not* tie electoral votes to the popular vote. Yes, that's right. Some fuckhead can change their vote depending on what they wanted to, if they really wanted to be a dick. Even further, those state laws that do tie the vote for the elector are widely thought to be unenforceable and unconstitutional. However, that point is moot considering it's usually an after-the-fact misdeanor and hefty fine - well after the damage is done. (would you buy an electoral vote for $10k if it meant null and voiding say.. 5 million votes?)

This brings up something interesting.. Given the contention and high drama with this election. I'm almost expecting for this to happen in a swing state and for the biggest shitstorm ever to hit.

Just wondering peoples thoughts on this. No one seems to ever mention this, when talking about how the candidates may only be a couple electoral votes apart in the end. What if those two decide to vote opposite the popular vote of the state?

Food for thought is all. My first and last political thread.

-Phil

Phil21 · 10-29-2004, 10:26 PM

Just a bit more info..

Since the founding of the Electoral College, there have been 156 faithless Electors. 71 of these votes were changed because the original candidate died before the day on which the Electoral College cast their votes. Three of the votes were not cast at all as three Electors chose to abstain from casting their Electoral vote for any candidate. The other 82 Electoral votes were changed on the personal initiative of the Elector.

82 electoral votes have been changed due to "personal initiative"

(from http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/faithless.htm which seems to jive with more official general-sounding info)

something definitely interesting to ponder, at least to me.

CET · 10-29-2004, 11:49 PM

It's not at all unconstitutional, as a matter of fact the constitution allows for it. It wasn't until the ammendment allowing for the popular election of senators that the electoral college became obsolete (17th ammendment, I think). Until then, the senate was the state's voice in how the federal government was run, and now the states have no say in the federal government. Up until that ammendment, the electoral college was relevant, now it isn't and should be dissolved.

10-29-2004, 10:11 PM	#1
Phil21 Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Location: ICQ: 25285313 Posts: 993	Election question I don't normally post too much, but hey. Something has always somewhat bugged me, and I've found it amusing toying with the idea. Many states (as of last election at least) do not tie electoral votes to the popular vote. Yes, that's right. Some fuckhead can change their vote depending on what they wanted to, if they really wanted to be a dick. Even further, those state laws that do tie the vote for the elector are widely thought to be unenforceable and unconstitutional. However, that point is moot considering it's usually an after-the-fact misdeanor and hefty fine - well after the damage is done. (would you buy an electoral vote for $10k if it meant null and voiding say.. 5 million votes?) This brings up something interesting.. Given the contention and high drama with this election. I'm almost expecting for this to happen in a swing state and for the biggest shitstorm ever to hit. Just wondering peoples thoughts on this. No one seems to ever mention this, when talking about how the candidates may only be a couple electoral votes apart in the end. What if those two decide to vote opposite the popular vote of the state? Food for thought is all. My first and last political thread. -Phil __________________ Quality affordable hosting.

10-29-2004, 10:26 PM	#2
Phil21 Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Location: ICQ: 25285313 Posts: 993	Just a bit more info.. Since the founding of the Electoral College, there have been 156 faithless Electors. 71 of these votes were changed because the original candidate died before the day on which the Electoral College cast their votes. Three of the votes were not cast at all as three Electors chose to abstain from casting their Electoral vote for any candidate. The other 82 Electoral votes were changed on the personal initiative of the Elector. 82 electoral votes have been changed due to "personal initiative" (from http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/faithless.htm which seems to jive with more official general-sounding info) something definitely interesting to ponder, at least to me. __________________ Quality affordable hosting.

10-29-2004, 11:49 PM	#3
CET Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 2,754	It's not at all unconstitutional, as a matter of fact the constitution allows for it. It wasn't until the ammendment allowing for the popular election of senators that the electoral college became obsolete (17th ammendment, I think). Until then, the senate was the state's voice in how the federal government was run, and now the states have no say in the federal government. Up until that ammendment, the electoral college was relevant, now it isn't and should be dissolved. __________________ Alt Journals, Blogs for Perverts! Fitness and nutrition writer, and UNIX/Linux Sys Ad in training "Just as a man who has fallen into a heap of filth ought to seek the great pond of water covered with lotuses, which is near by: even so seek thou for the great deathless lake of Nirvana to wash off the defilement of wrong. If the lake is not sought, it is not the fault of the lake."