Slashdot Mirror
West Virginian Mayor Might Defy Popular Vote
gleam writes "A maverick Republican mayor in West Virginia is reportedly considering not casting his vote in the Electoral College for Bush, even if Bush wins the popular vote there. South Charleston Mayor Richie Robb says, 'I know that among some in my own party, what I'm discussing would be considered treasonous, but I'm not going to cheerlead us down the primrose path when I know we're being led in the wrong direction.' It wouldn't be the first time a West Virginian Elector defied the popular vote: In 1988 an Elector cast her vote for Michael Dukakis's running mate, Lloyd Bentsen, even though Dukakis won the state's popular vote."
I can see the obvious point he's trying to make (I hate bush) but could he also be trying to open people's eyes to the dangers of the entire electoral college system? By making such a wacky move he'll open the eyes of voters (regardless of party) to the fact that there's a slim possibility that their votes may not count after all . . .
Hahah I said may not count - I almost forgot about last election!
The Electoral College, for those not familiar with the United States Presidental election system, is a particular group of people charged with electing the president.
The electors are charged with voting for the President - the President is elected by this group of people (much like the Holy Roman Emperor was elected by a select group of German/Italian nobles). The people technically vote for electors.
Electors are "pledged" to vote for who the people they represent voted for - but they aren't required. This (electors voting for someone other than the person the popular vote chose) has happened several times in the past, although it has never affected the outcome of the election.
Several reasons have been postulated for the Electoral College system. One, it's a check on the stupidity of the people - make sure a dicatorial demagogue isn't elected. Another reason was that the Founding Fathers didn't trust the communications of their time. For example, if, after the popular election, it was found out that the President-elect was a serial killer, the electors could change their vote.
...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
The US two-party-only system has always baffled me. Every thing I learn more about the system supports the concept that it is pretty much by law only a two-party state.
For example, your above comment. What would happen if an independant candidate won a state? Who would be the electoral college voter?
Electors for each STATE do cast their vote based on the popular tally of their state. Electoral math starts to get weird when elections get close, like last time when several states were won or lost by only a few thousand votes. That's when you get a situation where enough electoral votes to win (270) going for one candidate, while the grand TOTAL individual votes from ALL states is actually for another candidate. This election in particular, I wonder if the members of the electoral college are mulling thier power and choices this year, either to throw a wrench in a candidate's win (like the W. Virginia Mayor) or to correct weird math when the national numbers go to one guy, but their vote would give it to the other guy. Either way its gonna be a nailbiter..
Actually, members of both camps who are familiar with the law will call him "faithless."
This happens every four years. Somebody who's unfamiliar with election law and history comes along and says, "I ain't votin' fer that one no matter what my constichency say." And then he gets yanked according to the "faithless elector" law and makes a big squawk for about 20 minutes. Then everybody forgets for four years.
I write in my journal
Instead of appointing Senators, how about only allowing taxpayors to elect them. If the net of what you pay vs what you receive from the federal government is negative, you don't get to vote. Include minors - anyone with a part time job pays FICA and that's a tax. Otherwise have at it. Heck, you could even prorate the number of votes based upon the amount that you've paid in taxes (1-10,000 = 1 vote, 10,001 - 1,000,000 = 2 votes, more than 1M = 3 votes) and not screw stuff up too much.
Taxpayors have lost their representation in the federal government. Doing something like this would hopefully bring that balance back.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
The electoral votes/popular vote problem is a result of a 10 year census (and the congressional redistricting/electoral college rebalance that follows). I'd be all for a system that redistributes every two years, but the census bureau budget would have to be increased and there would be bitter redistricting fights every two years instead of every 10. Actually what would be best would for the census to be a headcount of all eligible voters done in the 1st half of even numbered years. Redistricting would then be done on the odd years before congress went on summer recess. This would take out the illegal (and legal) alien population, felons who haven't had their voting rights restored, etc, basically the people who don't have a vote shouldn't determine population tallys for voting purposes. This would also clean up any confusion like what was done in florida where they just had massive purges of the voter rolls based on name instead of actual felon status, which was friggin braindead.
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
I believe electors should not be allowed to decide who they will vote for before the national election. Each party can put electors on the ballot, but each elector runs separately. It would increase representation. It would allow you to vote mostly democrats, but vote against the anti-gun democrats, if that is how you wish to vote!
After the polls close the electors gather together and come to an agreement (by the deadline in the constitution or it goes to congress). Since each electors is independent, electors can compromise on someone in the other party, but with important beliefs to shared with the other. (for example, a anti-abortion democrat)
The electoral college is there because a good leader may have to piss people off.
"If I was in his state and he didn't vote according to the popular vote then I'd feel very much like he stole from me personally my right to influence the election process."
:)
I could see this if he suddenly woke up after the general election and said "Oh, I'm not going to vote for Bush, by the way..." But announcing beforehand is a whole different matter IMO. There won't be any surprises if he does become one of WV's electors.
"Doing what he proposes is morally questionable, to say nothing of legality."
Actually, it's the "faithless elector" laws that are of questionable legallity. They're state laws trying to influence a federal office.
" How can he, being an elected official, simply ignore the wishes of the citizens of his state who voted (should the vote come in favor of Bush)."
You mean other than the fact that he'd be the one elected by the people and not Bush?
How can the GOP ignore the wishes of voters who want to vote for a Republican candidate but not vote for Bush? Either way, some voters will find themselves in the messy situation of voting in favor of a presidential candidate they don't like. Welcome to party politics (which the Electoral College was expressly designed to avoid).