Faithless Electors, should they be disallowed nationally?

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: odiousgambit

I once sympathized with the idea of dispensing with the electoral college altogether in favor of just using the general popular vote. I've changed my mind, I now think it is important to preserve it. The smaller states in population need to have a measure of equality, and I think everybody agrees the arrangement with senators is a good way to do it. But I also now think it should indeed expand to presidential elections as it does with this electoral college.

Not sure what you are saying here, can you rephrase?

EC is working exactly as intended and why intended. If anything, smaller states have it worse now than they did then. This national compact thing is playing with fire IMHO.

We have the small-state accommodation of each state having two senators, two only. The electoral college, with one vote for each senator, plus one vote for each congressman [I think], thus also makes an accommodation for small states. I am saying I now believe both things, equal rep. in the Senate, and the EC, should be preserved, but didn't always think so.

rephrasing the bold, "But I also now think it should indeed be what it is for presidential elections, with the traditional electoral college, and am no longer in favor of going to the popular vote."

Thanks, makes more sense that way.

Quote: AZDuffman

What I do not get is why do they need a compact? Just change the state law so they send their votes to the majority. That would show guts. Maybe I do get it?

The consitution dictates how many votes a state should have, but how they vote them is entirely up to the state. Nothing is off the table. The state of South Carolina for something lik 12 elections did not even have a popular vote.

The compact is not required, but states quickly learned that they got more attention in the campaign by adopting a winner take all. Battle ground states are not going to give up the hundreds of millions of dollars spent in their state as parties look for the big return of winner take all. The money will be spent in Pennsylvania in pursuit of 20 electoral college votes. If they vote by district it will probably go 9 Republican and 9 Democrat, and it isn't worth massive campaign dollars on the difficult problem of getting the two state wide votes.

Signing the compact is an easy way to appease your angry constituents as the large states have no incentive to go for this.


If the 13 little states signed a contract where their 18 congressional districts each gave one vote to the candidate of their choice, but they agreed to give their 26 votes to the overall winner of the unified vote, it would be perfectly legal.

2 congressional districts
Hawaii
Idaho
Maine
New Hampshire
Rhode Island

1 congressional districts
Alaska
Delaware
District of Columbia
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Vermont
Wyoming

As it was Trump won 7 of those states and Hillary won 6, and Trump would have beaten Hillary by 46.4% to 45.1%, but there is a proper mix of liberal and conservative states. Voter turnout would be much higher if people thought that their vote was really important. So there is no guarantee that a Republican or Democrat would win.