GMTom wrote:Some states (about half) have pledges requiring them to vote a specific way, some have fines for failure to vote a specific way,
All of which are not enforceable, and would not actually stop an elector being unfaithful.
and lastly, the electors are chosen by the party that won.
True, but many in the GOP opposed Trump, and unfaithful voters have happened in recent elections.
If the election were won by a vote or two, I could see this possibly coming in to play but not with what, about 40 votes to spare? ...Not gonna happen!
Oh, I am well aware that it is incredibly unlikely, but then again this a weird year already. His cabinet and high level picks might turn a few off.
Myself, I like the concept but would like to do away with actual votes. Win the state, win the number of votes. No need for any actual votes cast by any people. I would also like to do away with the way a tie is handled (congress decides president, senate decides vp or vice-versa?) in the case of a tie I would then go to the popular vote. But that's just me
I think it makes more sense if you go back to the idea of the House being more representative. The gerrymandering (which yes, both main parties benefit from) means that in some years, like 2012, the party with most votes has fewer seats. I had the idea that the House was meant to be the most democratic (and with frequent all out elections that would sway with popular opinion), the Senate at a State level and so less democratic and with less frequent and offset elections would not swing as much, and the Presidency a combination of the two.
It would make sense to either just have a majority vote decide the Presidency or, as you suggest, use it as a way to decide if the College does not show a majority.
RJ, sure, if the rules were different, then the election would be. And more Americans should make themselves aware of the rules before they vote. Of course there is a move between States for them to allow - once enough agree to get 270 Electors - to get behind the winner of the popular vote. And that would be Constitutional, as the basic rule is that the States decide - and in the early days popular votes were not used in all states anyway.