[Magdalen] Don't know if this is already widely known ...

[Scott Knitter]

Maybe this scheme would be easier to achieve than an Electoral College
abolition, but I think abolition would be ideal if it's possible.

My therapist was unaware the Electoral College involved actual people.
I sort of schooled him on it. Back in Michigan I remember ballots in
presidential elections saying, "Electors for <candidate>" rather than
making it look like we were voting directly for that candidate. I,
like my therapist, used to think "electors" was just a concept, a way
of tallying results and that people were no more involved in casting
actual electoral votes. But I was wrong...the elected electors still
have to go cast their ballots, and a set of documents is distributed
and unsealed in a specific place and time by people. I know it's been
formulaic and therefore not much covered by the media, but maybe this
year we'll have live tweets, at least from the proceedings.

If the Electoral College has always been constitutionally free to vote
as the electors wish (despite state laws fining them if they vote
"unfaithfully"), I think getting rid of it entirely would be highly
preferable to making it the sort of pro forma thing I used to think it
was.

On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 6:40 AM, Ann Markle <ann.markle at aya.yale.edu> wrote:
> I'm very interested in the new law/scheme that's being proposed to pledge
> electors to the popular vote -- thus bypassing the Constitution, but still
> allowing popular vote to rule.  Of course, if I'm not mistaken, all the
> states have to sign on to it -- but they've already got (hmm, not Googling,
> so can't remember the exact amount) a fair number of states signed on, both
> red and blue.




-- 
Scott R. Knitter
Edgewater, Chicago, Illinois USA