JimMe

We have an Electoral College System of Electing Our President and Vice-President, and for all intent-and-purposes, we will have this System in place for generations to come...

That said, the Electoral Delegates were never looked at as having the privilege of voting for whoever they pleased, but rather who there State wanted them to vote for...

But in 4 of the last 8 Presidential Elections - dating back to 1988 - we've had 10 Electorates assert such a privilege simply because Our USA Constitution doesn't limit them from doing so...

And in 2016, there were massive calls for the Electorate to disregard their State's Populous Votes and vote for a specific Candidate...

It's time the Electoral Votes reflect only what they are meant to be... And this means an Amendment limiting who the Electorates Vote for...

Lonewolf

Agree

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

How are delegates to the electoral college selected? Who do they work for?

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

So far, those that didn't go along, never changed an election.

My thought that I would like to add to this debate is about how they are selected and how they are allowed to vote.

Should a state have their delegates apportioned by percentages of the voters in that state?

Should they be winner take all in that particular states overall vote totals?

And as some states are moving to do, which would eliminate the whole purpose of the Electoral college, should an individual state be able to change the rules of that particular state and require all delegates to vote for the winner of the overall vote in America?

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Exactly

JimMe

lpnmajor... The Constitution gives the Individual State Legislatures the responsibility to assign an Electoral Delegate, one for each House of Representatives the State has, and two for the two Senators the State has... Example: California has 53 House Members and 2 Senators, so they have 55 Electorates who vote for the President and Vice-President based on the State Legislatures Laws and Regulations...

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

That is old news. The new news is that various states, based on, "State Legislatures Laws and Regulations" are trying to force all delegates to vote for the person who wins the total vote in the United States and not just their state. Sounds to me like it violates the Constitution where the delegates are supposed to represent their States total and not the United States totals. They still can't get over the facts that Gore and Clinton lost by the rules.

One of the advantages of the delegates representing their state and only their state, that I never see mentioned, is a real close total U. S. popular vote. Remember hanging chads in Florida. Imagine that times fifty with State Legislatures, Governors etc. trying to manipulate the results for their favored candidate. They couldn't straighten that out in four years, especially with all of the illegal and dead and unregistered voting. Our jails would be overflowing. You better thank God for the Electoral college and hope the Supreme Court over rules those states that would try to make their delegates vote for the United States popular vote totals.

Logically Right

JimMe

Actually, the States that agree with each other in a Contract do violate the Constitution:

Article 1 Section 10: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

The Fed Courts will not do anything until the States act on the Contract and someone sues them for violating the Constitution...

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

You are probably right. And if some judge ruled that those states couldn't do that with the Electoral College, their votes would/could become null and void for that election. If it didn't change the outcome, no problem. If it did, it could put the whole election on hold for Months/Years. Now somehow I see that helping Trump and the Republicans and that is the exact outcome that those states trying to change the rules would hate the most.

Just trying to add one and one. That is how I see it so far. Looking for more input.

Logically Right

JimMe

After the States send their Electoral Votes to Congress by Early December, and there is a claim there are States that have violated the Constitution based on Article 1 Section 10, and the Fed Courts do void certain States' Votes that has no one have a Majority of Electorates, the US Constitution has the Congress Members and Vice-President who were in Office on the General Election Day be the ones who must Elect the President and/or the Vice-President, and do so prior to January 3rd...

So you see, the US Constitution ensures there cannot be any "... Months/Years..." between the General Election and the Swearing-in of Our President-Elect and Vice-President-Elect on January 20th...

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

I stand corrected on the results going on for years. But I disagree on your interpretation. I just looked it up. If there is no one candidate receiving over 270 votes, the election goes to the House of Representatives. Each state gets one vote, based on the votes of there total representatives. This could still result in a 25 to 25 tie. Then the Vice President elect takes over until the issue is resolved in the House.

We can go on trying to litigate this ourselves, but I'm sure the Supreme Court could/would also have an input if necessary and it is beyond our resolving it here. Let's just agree that you were right and it will be resolved by Nomination day.

I claim to be Logically Right, but I'm not a lawyer and our laws aren't always logically right. But there appears to be an established process for breaking ties and such. Let it play out.

JimMe

You are incorrect about the Vice-President-Elect taking Office as President... The Outgoing House will Elect the President before January 3rd, and will take as many votes as needed to Elect a President before January 3rd... The precedent was set in 1800 when the House took 6 days and 36 Ballots to Elect Thomas Jefferson... I looked it up... And although there has never had to be an Outgoing Senate who had to Elect a Vice-President, they'll need to do so before the Incoming Senate is sworn-in on January 3rd...

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

Sorry to dispute that, but that is not the way I read the Constitution. I'll stand by the way I wrote my comment. But, meanwhile, let's just agree to disagree. The likelihood of it ever getting that far is less then getting struck by lightening. Time to move on.

Logically Right

JimMe

LogicallyRight... I cannot believe you don't even know the precedent of the 1800 Presidential Election... I learned this in 8th Grade US History in 1963 in Paterson, New Jersey in Public School # 9... The fact you don't know how the US Presidential Elections are truly determined if a Majority of Electoral Votes are not won is disturbing to me... It shows how poor the US Educational System has become, and how sad that you cannot interpret the US Constitution accurately...

You are not "Logically Right"... You're "Sadly Wrong"...

JimMe

LogicallyRight... I not only apologize for my hammering you regarding the procedures the US Constitution has given the House, I can say you were correct and I was wrong in my analysis... I'm the one who is "Sadly Wrong"... I forgot to look-up the 12th Amendment, and failed to realize if the Outgoing House doesn't Elect a President by the time the Incoming President is to be sworn-in, whomever is the sworn-in Vice-President on that day will also be sworn-in as President - and if no Incoming Vice-President has a Majority of Votes, the Speaker of the House becomes President, and the 25th Amendment Section 1 would need to apply because there would be no "Sitting President" to resume their Office, and this would mean the Speaker would be the President for the full 4 year term, and would nominate their own Vice-President that Congress would need to Vote for or against...

Thank you for being corrective...
Yours Truly... Sadly Wrong!!!