Hello? Tap tap tap.... The states determine this. One state could require that all the electors go one way, another state could allow a split vote, another state could require individual electors call the governor first.

It really is the states that elect the president, not the people.

 

I hope you don't mind if I debunk that a little bit.

It doesn't make sense to have electors who are still subject to political pressure.

Who are your electors? Do you have any idea? They're all little people with hungry mouths to feed, probably don't have the jobs they really want, and could always stand to have a few thousand more dollars in their pockets.

For what you say to really work, you'd need a democratic monarchy, where the sovereign simply cannot be bribed.

The way Hitler came to power was that he controlled a large block of votes in the Reichstag but it was not a majority. The president of the German Republic, General Hindenburg, appointed him Chancellor because he could see no other way to form a government without having to call anotheg r general election. Hindenburg was influenced by the army's coming to him and saying they would support Hitler because he made them promises to do with rebuilding the German military.

A short distance away, across the English channel the British King-Emperor George VI was well acqauinted with how his constitution worked, and said a couple of times in public that he knew that he simply would have to refuse to appoint the government when confronted with a similar choice. At the time Hitler's first government was appointed, more people did not want him than wanted him.

It's very hard to bribe the Queen. (The woman owns her own navy...what are you going to give her?)

It's very easy to influence a politician. Too easy, IMHO.

 

For the umpteenth trillionth millionth time, the electoral college HELPS popular votes in non-large states count. Michigan and Ohio and Kentucky and many other states wouldn't count for squat if one candidate could grab California plus Florida plus Texas plus New York. You think it's bad now, well, go for a strict popular vote. Hope the people in North Dakota don't care who runs the show in Washington.

Electoral College keeps New Yorkers from screwing over Iowa.

 

Well, we can have the same discussion the American founding fathers had, if you want.

Thesis: If more people live in New York than live in Iowa, then New York should have more representation.

The issue's complicated by the (then more important) fact that the states are in many ways sovereign entities unto themselves. The complicated balancing act they decided on is the electoral college.

Not convinced, however, that what was right in 1794 is right in 2004.

 

Exactly. States' semi-sovereignty necessitates some kind of 'compromise.' Unless you think Michigan should kick Ohio's weakass butt and take back Toledo-!

 

i meant more along the lines of the public falling in love with so and so candidate who has extremist views but is very charming but would put the country in jeopardy. But i get where you are coming from it was just germany was hit with a hard time and were on the brink of collapsing on itself without a governing body.

 

A clever politico can scam either electors OR the 'hungry masses.'

 

having 2 walls makes it harder though. a person would have to go from the masses to the electors and that does make it harder.

 

Damn now my brain hurts. Just kidding.
I actually learned a lot from howstuffworks.
Politics are so complicated on this level. I can't see why anyone would want the responsibility of President.

 

I've also heard arguments put forth that the electoral college partly was put in place because the founding fathers didn't have faith in the average American citizen to make the best choice for the president. Back in the day, you voted for an elector, who then voted for the president, so basically the average Joe's vote was just show who he had faith in to make the "right" choice. Also, the electoral college facilitates the voting process when communication between regions could only be done through couriers. It's easier to count a couple hundred votes in each area and send an elector to Washington than to try to count thousands of votes statewide. The results have to be approved by Dec 22 if I remember correctly.

Currently, the electoral college for the most part is run the same way. Some states have bad faith elector laws, meaning that electors will get busted for voting against who they said they would vote for. One elector in DC abstained because DC doesn't have congressional representation.