1. The faithless-elector decision is, its legal merits aside, a healthy development for the fall elections. States can, of course, allow faithless electors, but long tradition has taught Americans & their candidates to assume that the winner of a state's vote gets its electors.
As with many things, we could improve the current system but we could never pass any improvements into law bc there would be holdout demands to instead blow the whole thing up, go national popular vote.
-
-
There's no obvious alternative , which is also why it just comes back to that same debate over and over again. But if I had to name something that actually ends up blowing up the system, it wouldn't be more EC/pop vote splits, it would be that.
-
This year's election being decided - or thrown to the House - by a faithless elector would be a pretty apocalyptic scenario.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
What’s it like being a conservative, knowing that if we just did a straight national one-person-one-vote, there would never be another Republican president?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.