• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Will every Republican delegate select Trump?

mbp said:
Why do nearly all states give all of their electors to one candidate?

I can see how once that system is in place the current majority in any state won't be inclined to change it. But what was the thinking behind choosing that setup in the first place?
Click to expand...

The really short version is that the system was conceived of before political parties existed in the first place and got somewhat hijacked when they came to be.
 
Aridas said:
The really short version is that the system was conceived of before political parties existed in the first place
Click to expand...
So it wasn't envisaged that the list of (viable) candidates would be the same in all states?
 
mbp said:
So it wasn't envisaged that the list of (viable) candidates would be the same in all states?
Click to expand...

No. It was envisaged that the slate of electors would be better informed and wiser than the sweaty masses.

The electoral college was specifically set up to put a cushion of informed and politically savvy elites in charge of choosing the President. If you read the background material, chiefly in The Federalist Papers, it's very clear. If anyone made those arguments today, in an America where Bobby Ray, Rashad and Consuela think they know as much about biology, economics and anthropology as PhDs do, it would be thrown out in a second.

It was never envisioned that there would be a party system (two or more) but that this well-heeled intelligentsia would meet and deliberate and decide what or who was best for the country. It was the ultimate smoke-filled back room, chiefly fathered by Hamilton and Madison, enemies of the general public.
 
Foolmewunz said:
No. It was envisaged that the slate of electors would be better informed and wiser than the sweaty masses.

The electoral college was specifically set up to put a cushion of informed and politically savvy elites in charge of choosing the President. If you read the background material, chiefly in The Federalist Papers, it's very clear. If anyone made those arguments today, in an America where Bobby Ray, Rashad and Consuela think they know as much about biology, economics and anthropology as PhDs do, it would be thrown out in a second.

It was never envisioned that there would be a party system (two or more) but that this well-heeled intelligentsia would meet and deliberate and decide what or who was best for the country. It was the ultimate smoke-filled back room, chiefly fathered by Hamilton and Madison, enemies of the general public.
Click to expand...

It also was part of "The Great Compromise" to get the smaller states to ratify the constitution.
 
dudalb said:
It also was part of "The Great Compromise" to get the smaller states to ratify the constitution.
Click to expand...

Technically, I think it was after the Great(Connecticut) Compromise. It built on the principles agreed to, but it was a separate arrangement by a separate committee. (But, by "after", I mean days or weeks, not years. It was all part of the process of laying out the Constitution.)
 
mbp said:
Why do nearly all states give all of their electors to one candidate?

I can see how once that system is in place the current majority in any state won't be inclined to change it. But what was the thinking behind choosing that setup in the first place?
Click to expand...

It's the states that elect the president. Think of it this way: Each state gets to cast a vote for one of the candidates. Each state's vote is weighted, based on their population, to reflect the "majority rule" principle of democracy. Each state's vote also has a guaranteed minimum weighting, to reflect the principle that America is a union of states (hence the name) and each state has a say. The number of electors each state gets is the mechanism by which their vote for president is weighted.

For a state to split the vote of their electors would be to dilute their voice in the election of the president. I think it profoundly misses the point of the Electoral College. It's not the people of the United States that vote for the president. It's the people of each state who vote, and they vote for who their state should elect. Nebraska and Maine basically undo the election they just had, and cede the voice of their state to other states.
 
theprestige said:
It's the states that elect the president. Think of it this way: Each state gets to cast a vote for one of the candidates. Each state's vote is weighted, based on their population, to reflect the "majority rule" principle of democracy. Each state's vote also has a guaranteed minimum weighting, to reflect the principle that America is a union of states (hence the name) and each state has a say. The number of electors each state gets is the mechanism by which their vote for president is weighted.

For a state to split the vote of their electors would be to dilute their voice in the election of the president. I think it profoundly misses the point of the Electoral College. It's not the people of the United States that vote for the president. It's the people of each state who vote, and they vote for who their state should elect. Nebraska and Maine basically undo the election they just had, and cede the voice of their state to other states.
Click to expand...

NE and ME are the only states, IMHO, trying to get back to the spirit of the EC as envisioned. Before the parties dominated the landscape, most states went by district, not by FPTP winner take all. People think of the districting variation as something new, but it's a return to the system used prior to the 1820s. Once one state went "winner take all" the others followed to protect themselves, politically.

I'm of the opinion that NE and ME are honoring the election they just had.

ETA: Anyone able to verify? Was VA the first state to go "statewide popular vote" in allocating the EV? Makes sense. With their clout in terms of size, the other states would have had to have followed to protect their own (parties') interests.
 
Last edited:
Foolmewunz said:
ETA: Anyone able to verify? Was VA the first state to go "statewide popular vote" in allocating the EV? Makes sense. With their clout in terms of size, the other states would have had to have followed to protect their own (parties') interests.
Click to expand...

If this table on Wikipedia is accurate and I'm understanding what you're asking, VA was not the first. Rather, PA and MD were.
 
By the way. I'm not an idiot. I know Hawaii has always been a solid Democratic state.,FWIW.
 
Yes. And petitions to try to get Republicans electors to change their vote are pure fantasy. It is more likely that Trump dies or declines to take office.

Donald Trump is going to be the President of the United States. And the only hope we really have is that he turns out to be more moderate and same than people think. Or that Republicans don't get rid of the filibuster.
 
Last edited:
Another important fact is that the EC gave slave states more electors per voter. This was apparently a point of discussion
 
I posted about this yesterday in one of the other threads. I'm sure there is a lot of misinformation about the Electoral College. The history is that prior to about 1824 state legislatures voted to choose a president from the candidates who were running. The legislature then chose electors who were bound by the choice and who would assemble and make the formal vote. From what I have found, electors never had any discretion as to who they were voting for. Early on they were bound by their state legislature's choice and, after 1824 or so, were bound by their state's popular vote.

Electors are chosen by the political parties participating in the presidential election. They are usually chosen at the summer convention when the nominee for president is being selected. The electors are bound to the party's candidate. My understanding is, electors must vote for the candidate to which their slate is aligned. If they were to have say, a last minute conscientious objection to that candidate I think the best they could do would be to possibly abstain; I don't think there is any process whereby electors can vote for a candidate whose name was not on the ballot or 'vote' for the opposition candidate.

Here's some information from the Electoral College's website:
Who selects the Electors?

Choosing each state's Electors is a two-part process. First, the political parties in each state choose slates of potential Electors sometime before the general election. Second, on Election Day, the voters in each state select their state's Electors by casting their ballots for President.

The first part of the process is controlled by the political parties in each state and varies from state to state. Generally, the parties either nominate slates of potential Electors at their state party conventions or they chose them by a vote of the party's central committee. This happens in each state for each party by whatever rules the state party and (sometimes) the national party have for the process. This first part of the process results in each Presidential candidate having their own unique slate of potential Electors.

Political parties often choose Electors for the slate to recognize their service and dedication to that political party. They may be state elected officials, state party leaders, or people in the state who have a personal or political affiliation with their party's Presidential candidate. (For specific information about how slates of potential Electors are chosen, contact the political parties in each state.) Link to website
Click to expand...

Political parties in the U.S came into existence in the late 1780s. In the first presidential election in 1788 George Washing ran unaffiliated and unopposed. In 1792 Washington ran as a member of the Federalist party. He was opposed by George Clinton who ran as a Democrat-Republican. In 1796, after Washington declined to run for a third term, John Adams ran as a Federalist opposed by Thomas Jefferson who ran as a Democrat-Republican. Adams narrowly defeated Jefferson 71 electoral votes to 68 (with 70 needed to win). As the top vote getter Adams was elected president and the runnerup (Jefferson) was made vice president.
 
newyorkguy said:
Political parties in the U.S came into existence in the late 1780s. In the first presidential election in 1788 George Washing ran unaffiliated and unopposed. In 1792 Washington ran as a member of the Federalist party. He was opposed by George Clinton who ran as a Democrat-Republican. In 1796, after Washington declined to run for a third term, John Adams ran as a Federalist opposed by Thomas Jefferson who ran as a Democrat-Republican. Adams narrowly defeated Jefferson 71 electoral votes to 68 (with 70 needed to win). As the top vote getter Adams was elected president and the runnerup (Jefferson) was made vice president.
Click to expand...

It'd be interesting if that last part were still standard OP, and Clinton were VP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom