A recent decision by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals now allows electors to vote for whomever they want, and the state which they represent must count their ballot.
In my opinion, this ends the viability of the electoral college. First, if the electors can vote for whomever they want, then your vote and mine no longer matters. The elector can override whatever the state’s results are, or whatever laws/procedures a state may have governing electors. While electors changing votes has never changed the outcome of a presidential election, with this ruling that expressly allows them to vote for whomever they want, the courts have removed a huge impediment to their doing so. It may end an elector’s ability to serve again and cause them to be ostracized politically, but this is the election of a president we’re talking about. An elector is unlikely to be in a future position with more power; it’s a huge temptation.
Second, this has frightening possibilities. Electors themselves are announced weeks before the actual electoral college meets. They are now open to bribery, extortion, etc. Imagine a tight presidential contest, and then a billionaire comes in (take your pick of bogeymen: George Soros or Sheldon Adelson) and bribes enough electors to change the outcome. Or, a terrorist / criminal organization threatens the families of certain electors to change the outcome. Sadly, in this day and age, it’s a real possibility.
I say amend the constitution and eliminate it; it’s an archaic institution already, this cements its purposelessness. Thoughts?
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Unless I am mistaken, I believe this ruling restores the original prerogitive of the electors who originally had been able to vote against the public. This, in fact, is the raison d’être of the EC.
It has always been a means to block the will of the people and has done so to elect the last two Republican presidents.
LikeLiked by 2 people
*prerogative
LikeLike
Any electoral system that allows the votes of thousands to outweigh the votes of millions is broken and needs to be replaced.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree it needs to go (as does the Senate), but it is not broken. It is functioning exactly as intended.
LikeLike
Point taken. However, it was the result of a compromise, so it is working “as intended” for only some of the framers…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Despite all the lofty wordings by our founders, they were still an aristocratic elite. Just because they wanted freedom from England, there was not much desire to create a totally egalitarian society.
In addition to the representative form of governance, the EC and the Senate were breakwaters to a populist form of democracy. I guess considering the educational levels of the average working citizens, that might have been understandable. Yet the 1st Amendment did indicate a willingness to encourage participation without reprisal. And the inclusion of a postal system was a nod to the importance of spreading information into the vast corners of the nascent nation.
Yet consider the wise observation of Jefferson:
“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
“Originalists” might heed that view of the Constitution.
IMHO
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you for sharing Jefferson’s thoughts on the subject. So much better than originalists who claim to know the minds of the FF.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “there was not much desire to create a totally egalitarian society.”
That depends what you mean by “egalitarian.” The founders took the concept no farther than “equality before the law,” but considering how difficult it is to set up a system that provides only that much, that’s probably as far as the principle of egalitarianism can be carried in any case.
As for aristocracy, every society produces one, with almost genetic certainty. One of the reasons that liberty is a key innovation in political affairs is that a new kind of aristocracy can emerge, one characterized by merit as opposed to bloodline or mere wealth. In a letter to John Adams, Jefferson called this newly available form the “natural aristocracy”:
“For I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly bodily powers gave place among the aristoi. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground of distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent it’s ascendancy.”
https://www.bigeye.com/aristocracy.htm
LikeLike
“May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government?”
Sure we can say that. But that is believing in unicorns.
The problem is who are those selecting the candidates for the “natural aristocracy”?
Jefferson was describing a benign dictatorship with a line of succession as selected by other “natural aristocrats”.
What we have, a representative democratic republic is much more realistic and much less inclined to devolve into a “Brave New World” of Alphas through Epsilons.
The reason is that the representative is the “champion” of a district. Chosen through a vetting process that can, not always as we well know, select those who have a natural and effective leadership ability. Elect enough of them from various parts of the nation, and, as a “congress”, we have a “group natural aristocracy” that is also very answerable to the citizenry via elections.
Yes, that is a bit idealistic and has been corrupted by the importance of money from the “artificial aristocracy”. And it might get worse before it gets better.
Bottom line is that it might be time for an amendment to pitch the EC for presidential elections. Let the Congress and the Judiciary protect the smaller states and other minority interests. Let the president be elected by the entire population in a truly national election.
IMHO
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Sure we can say that. But that is believing in unicorns.
“The problem is who are those selecting the candidates for the ‘natural aristocracy’?”
I think you are misreading Jefferson. The candidates for office are the natural aristocracy of the people, not the winners of the elections. The mechanics of the Electoral College have no effect on that, because the EC only chooses the winner, not the candidates.
One might also suggest that the electors themselves represent the natural aristocracy as Jefferson conceived of it..
LikeLike
I was slightly taken aback by the choice of the word “bogeyman”, and more so by the 2 names used. Yes, one supports the left (Soros) and one supports the right (Adelson). However, they are both Jewish. If one were so inclined, they could jump on the assertion that only Jews, regardless of their political leanings, are “bogeymen”, and therefore makes the comment anti-semitic. I don’t believe that was the intent of the comment, but it could easily be taken that way. There are plenty of billionaires to choose from. Why those two?
LikeLike
Soros is the favorite target of the right, so that makes sense. Every conspiracy is linked to him.
“He paid for the migrant march through Mexico “
“He bussed in illegal voter from state to state.”
He probably was a silent partner in a pizza shop. (Wink, wink)
Adelson is an unabashed hardliner for Israel. So his choice might not have been the best.
Koch brothers are more the favorite target of liberals. Robert Mercer is also a hardline right winger, but he and his family stay below the radar.
Of course all this is irrelevant to the electoral college debate. Just some “fun facts”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agree that it was not relevant to the EC question. It was the choice of Soros and Adelson as the “bad guys” in the scenario that I was questioning.
I don’t think the Koch family is CURRENTLY Jewish. They may have been in the past as many older families, as part of assimilation went all in on Christianity to save their bodies, and some believe their souls, as well. Also through intermarriage folks converted in BOTH directions.
LikeLike
Honestly, I didn’t think of it that way. Soros seems to be the one most chosen by the right-wing as a foil, and Adelson by the left. I suppose I could have picked the Koch brothers, but I believe they are Jewish as well. Perhaps Robert Mercer or Ken Langone would have been a better pick, for the right, but they are less well known.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Speaking of the Kochs, there are one fewer of them as of this morning. The world just became a slightly better place.
LikeLike
Harsh; perhaps true, but harsh…
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s pretty shameful.
David Koch was a libertarian at heart and am opponent of President Trump. He donated funds to libertarian leaning Republicans and organizations.
He was a great philantropist in many areas, not all of which are political. The recently reopened renovation of the Fossil Hall at the Smithsonian is one of his projects.
LikeLike
Shameful? A little philanthropy does not begin to outweigh the damage to society these two have done with the money they inherited.
LikeLike
As I said, I didn’t believe that was your intention and I did NOT view it that way. But I do try to view things through the eyes of others. I was only stating that some may view the way I mentioned.
LikeLike
The Electoral College is far from being an “archaic institution” or “purposeless.” It is, instead, an elegant mathematical solution to a problem with democracy that has been known since antiquity. Plato described the problem as the “tyranny of the majority.”
The EC substitutes decision by plurality for decision by majority. The result is a statistically valid measurement of national popular sentiment that is independent of geography.
To win the EC, a candidate must win 538 independent contests in which each contest has the same number of eligible voters. Because each contest is decided by popular vote majority, the tally of contest wins reflects the popular vote.
Most states have adopted a winner-take-all rule which maximizes their influence on the national election. But even so, the EC math validly reflects the popular vote, since state winners are chosen by majority. Put another way, the sum of state wins under winner-take-all serves to be decisive when the national popular vote is sufficiently close to be considered ambiguous or reflective of national ambivalence.
A further subtlety of the math is that the EC can provide a decisive selection when three or more candidates are on the ballot.
The EC is thus an elegant solution because it is statistically valid, provides definitive results and it is extensible to any number of states of any population density and any number of candidates.
LikeLike
“elegant solution“ ??
Not sure where you get this silliness.
Not sure whether to laugh, cry, or just SMH…
LikeLiked by 2 people
They don’t believe in democracy. At least John is honest about it. Most aren’t.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Not sure where you get this silliness.”
As stated, “The EC is thus an elegant solution BECAUSE it is statistically valid, provides definitive results and it is extensible to any number of states of any population density and any number of candidates.”
Do you have a substantive comment to make?
LikeLike
I do. Your “analysis” is poppycock. There is NOTHING elegant about the EC mathematically or politically.
LikeLike
That’s a very elegant explanation of your position. My position, however, is considerably less verbose:
One person, one vote.
LikeLiked by 3 people
But, the problem is, the courts have now undone this. The contest is no longer decided by popular vote majority – the basis is now whatever that individual elector chooses it to be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “the courts have now undone this. The contest is no longer decided by popular vote majority – the basis is now whatever that individual elector chooses it to be.”
This was always true. The court decision you cite merely confirms the founders’ original intent that electors should have autonomy.
The problem you describe is really the same as the fact than any vote cast is nullified by a different vote cast. This is inherently true for every conceivable type of polling. Wanting to change it is futile.
LikeLike
The very real aspect of this, which is that voter confidence in whether their vote actually counts is ALREADY most likely at its lowest, given the Supremes deciding the 2000 election and heaven only knows WHO decided the one in 2016. I’m personally STILL going with the actions of the entire Trump gang, the Russians, J. Assange and yep, Commey, too, as being the culprits who paved the way for the ‘fill-in-the-blank’ in the Oval Office now.
So, now we get to ad one more layer of “let’s do all we can to make an election turn out OUR way”, via the EC. If only 4 or 5 states really matter, we should get the word out to ‘sleep in’ so far as the presidential election is concerned and just allow ourselves enough time to cast our ballots for the STATE and LOCAL candidates – since we make no difference in the presidential outcome anyway. And, since many votes go ignored when the ‘electors’ go rogue.
That surely doesn’t ignite much enthusiasm, trust and excitement if being a part of the process. Why volunteer at our polling sites, assisting candidates and all the other things many of us do for elections?
LikeLiked by 2 people
A formatting note. When putting up an article more tan a few line long, please use the ‘To continue reading’ break
I will insert one for you on this post,
LikeLike
If you don’t like the electoral college. all ypu need to change it is 2/3rds of both houses of Congress and then get 37 states to ratify the Amendment, 20 if which would never have any say in who became President again.
Whether electors are bound or not is of some concern, but consider this.
Had it been proven between election night and Dec 13th, when the EC meets, that Trump had indeed been complicit in substantial election tampering by the Russians, would you not want the electors free to change their allegiance based on the new information, or would you have wanted them to be bound to elect him anyway?
LikeLike