The Glade 4.0 :: View topic - How is the electoral voting process not corrupt?

...the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified.

So, what prevents these electors from being bribed, threatened, or just personally corrupting the election process? It seems like there is a high potential for shennanigans here, even though it happens very rarely.

Congress is the body that ultimately certifies the vote and can decide to overrule unfaithful electors, which would possibly make the media happy... they could make a mint off that drama and it would make Florida 2000 look easy. Or, congress could close the doors and not let the unwashed participate at all. Good times would be had by all.

Given that the entire congress will be controlled by the republicans, it's not really likely they'll give it to the democrats.

Author:	Midgen [ Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:44 pm ]
Post subject:	How is the electoral voting process not corrupt?
I was reading this story in the Seattle times about an Elector who said he would likely not vote for Hillary Clinton as he preferred Bernie Sanders. http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-new ... r-clinton/ Note that this story was written on Nov 5th, before the states voters elected Hillary Clinton. This prompted me to do a little reading about the electoral process, and what obligations the Electors are under to cast their vote for the candidate their state voted for. What I think I found is that, they aren't! Apparently, it's still technically possible that on Dec 19th, when the 'real' election happens, the electoral college could defect enough votes to get Hillary elected. There is a term for this, called "Faithless Electors". Apparently the last time this happened (2004), an elector refused to vote for John Kerry, and instead voted for his running mate (John Edwards). In this case though, it was mostly symbolic, as Bush already had enough electoral votes to win. So, what prevents these electors from being bribed, threatened, or just personally corrupting the election process? It seems like there is a high potential for shennanigans here, even though it happens very rarely.

Author:	Screeling [ Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:34 pm ]
Post subject:
In AZ, the I think the state parties selected their electoral candidates, a responsibility they probably don't just pass off to some FNG.

Author:	Wwen [ Thu Nov 10, 2016 9:36 pm ]
Post subject:
IMO, gerrymandering is inherently corrupt. I really like this guys take on the whole thing.

Author:	Lenas [ Thu Nov 10, 2016 9:44 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: How is the electoral voting process not corrupt?
He's also got this one: Identical to alternative vote when only one winner is chosen, but ideal for multi-winner elections.

Author:	Rynar [ Fri Nov 11, 2016 12:16 am ]
Post subject:
I've seen that guy's stuff before. It's fantastic.

The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/

How is the electoral voting process not corrupt? https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11796	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Midgen [ Fri Nov 11, 2016 2:12 am ]
Post subject:
Those videos are pretty fun (I'd never seen them before)... But... what do they have to do with my question? :p

Author:	Taskiss [ Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:19 am ]
Post subject:
The process is outlined here: https://www.archives.gov/federal-regist ... l#congress ...and in this section is the really long winded answer to your question: https://www.archives.gov/federal-regist ... ns.html#15 tldr; Quote: ...the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. Congress is the body that ultimately certifies the vote and can decide to overrule unfaithful electors, which would possibly make the media happy... they could make a mint off that drama and it would make Florida 2000 look easy. Or, congress could close the doors and not let the unwashed participate at all. Good times would be had by all. Given that the entire congress will be controlled by the republicans, it's not really likely they'll give it to the democrats.

Author:	Diamondeye [ Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:33 am ]
Post subject:	Re: How is the electoral voting process not corrupt?
Midgen wrote: So, what prevents these electors from being bribed, threatened, or just personally corrupting the election process? It seems like there is a high potential for shennanigans here, even though it happens very rarely. The electors are all people with an established history in the Republican party. They owe their own political future to their continued good offices. In addition to the (generally trivial) legal penalties for the faithless, you can forget getting elected to city council or school board or whatever after that. The #Nevertrumpers with "principle" at this point are a few conservative journalist holdouts who have no responsibility. Sanders and Warren have already bent the knee, Republicans will too. The glittering prize of ending the threat of liberal justices is within reach, and Congress will be able to get what it wants.

Author:	Midgen [ Fri Nov 11, 2016 11:04 am ]
Post subject:	Re:
Taskiss wrote: Congress is the body that ultimately certifies the vote and can decide to overrule unfaithful electors, which would possibly make the media happy... they could make a mint off that drama and it would make Florida 2000 look easy. Or, congress could close the doors and not let the unwashed participate at all. Good times would be had by all. Given that the entire congress will be controlled by the republicans, it's not really likely they'll give it to the democrats. Ahh, ok.. This makes sense... Thanks

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/