econintersect.com
       
  

FREE NEWSLETTER: Econintersect sends a nightly newsletter highlighting news events of the day, and providing a summary of new articles posted on the website. Econintersect will not sell or pass your email address to others per our privacy policy. You can cancel this subscription at any time by selecting the unsubscribing link in the footer of each email.



posted on 04 November 2016

Do American Voters Really Have A Say On Election Day?

from The Conversation

-- this post authored by Bryan Cranston, Swinburne University of Technology

Despite popular opinion, American voters on Election Day are not voting for the president. They are merely indicating a preference for whom they would like to see become president.

Voters are in fact, voting for "Electors" to represent their state in the US Electoral College. It is these Electors who cast the vote to decide who is elected president.

According to the United States Archives, these Electors to the Electoral College are chosen prior to Election Day by the political parties of each state - usually at state party conventions, or by the party's state committee.

Electors are chosen in recognition of their service to the party and may be elected officials, party leaders, or people in the state who have some affiliation with the party's presidential candidate.

There is no constitutional or federal legal requirement for Electors to vote according to the voters of their state.

In the 1952 case of Ray vs Blair, the US Supreme Court ruled that states could choose to apply a penalty to Electors who did not follow the wishes of the voters. That could be by issuing a fine, or voiding that Elector's vote in the Electoral College.

As a result of that case, Electors in 25 of the country's 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, are bound by state law or party pledge to cast their vote in the Electoral College based on the result of the general election.

This means that the Electors of the remaining half of the states are free to ignore the vote on Election Day, and instead cast their vote in the Electoral College for whomever they wish. They may even vote contrary to the outcome of the general election. Electors who do this are known as "faithless electors".

In other words, if Hillary Clinton wins New York, there is no requirement for that state's Electors to vote for her in the Electoral College, and they could - in theory - vote for Trump.

You may be surprised to learn that this has happened on 21 occasions in America's history, including nine times since 1945.

Notable cases of faithless electors

In 2004, John Edwards was the Democratic vice presidential running mate of John Kerry. But an Elector from Minnesota cast their ballot for Edwards rather than Kerry.

A similar instance occurred in 1988, when an Elector from West Virginia cast their vote for the Democratic vice presidential nominee, Lloyd Bentsen, instead of Michael Dukakis.

In 1976, rather than vote for Republican Gerald Ford, an Elector from Virginia cast their vote for Ronald Reagan - despite Reagan not being on the general election ballot.

Hillary Clinton will not be the first woman to receive an Electoral College vote. In 1972, instead of supporting the Republican ticket of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, a Republican Elector voted for the Libertarian Party. Thus, Theodora Nathan, the Libertarian vice presidential candidate, won an Electoral vote.

It's not all doom and gloom. Or is it?

It may be somewhat reassuring to learn that the Electoral College has never elected someone president who would not otherwise have won. However, the fact is they could.

Imagine the following scenario. Donald Trump narrowly wins the election by the same Electoral College margin as George Bush over Al Gore in 2000: 271 to 266. Rather than see "President Trump", the Electors of South Dakota could instead vote for Clinton. That would see the Electoral College result change from to 268 to 270, thus denying Trump victory and handing it to Clinton.

It is entirely possible, and legal.

So how did it come to this? The so called "Founding Fathers" of the US Constitution - a small group including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton - had little confidence in voters' ability to elect the "right" person. So they developed a fail safe mechanism that could be used in case voters got it "wrong".

Perhaps former UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill was echoing these sentiments with his attributed quote: "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

When looking back at 2016, some future scholars and historians may well think him correct.

The ConversationBryan Cranston, Online Lecturer in Politics, and PhD Candidate in Politics and History, Swinburne University of Technology

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

>>>>> Scroll down to view and make comments <<<<<<

Click here for Historical Opinion Post Listing










Make a Comment

Econintersect wants your comments, data and opinion on the articles posted. You can also comment using Facebook directly using he comment block below.




Econintersect Opinion


search_box

Print this page or create a PDF file of this page
Print Friendly and PDF


The growing use of ad blocking software is creating a shortfall in covering our fixed expenses. Please consider a donation to Econintersect to allow continuing output of quality and balanced financial and economic news and analysis.


Take a look at what is going on inside of Econintersect.com
Main Home
Analysis Blog
Was Marx Right?
Angst in America, Part 5: The Crisis We Can’t Muddle Through
News Blog
Early Headlines: Trump Blames Dems And Constitution For Chaos, US Child Poverty, Winter Leaves North New England, Labour Gains In Polls, And More
Grading President Trump's First 100 Days: B!
The Most Important Gaming Platforms 2017
Earnings And Economic Reports: Week Starting 01 May 2017
Ancestors Of Flores 'Hobbits' May Have Been Pioneers Of First 'Human' Migration Out Of Africa
The Global Top 10 Android Apps
What We Read Today 29 April 2017
'Horrifying' Witnesses Describe Latest String Of Prisoner Executions In Arkansas
Apr 25, 2017 08:01 GMT What Trump's Next 100 Days Will Look Like
How Did Small Businesses Do In 2016?
Costs Of Building A 355-Ship US Navy
The Roots Of Rising Treasury Yields
How Will College Grads Do In 2017 In Their Job Search
Investing Blog
Technical Thoughts: Finding Contrarian Ideas
More People Have Access To Netflix Than A DVR
Opinion Blog
Investors: Super Size Me
How Our Addiction To Safety Could Lead To Another Financial Crisis
Precious Metals Blog
A New Age For Gold
Live Markets
28Apr2017 Market Close: Wall Street Closed Mostly Down On News The U.S. Economy Grew At Its Weakest Pace In Three Years, WTI Crude Settles In The Low 49 Handle
Amazon Books & More






.... and keep up with economic news using our dynamic economic newspapers with the largest international coverage on the internet
Asia / Pacific
Europe
Middle East / Africa
Americas
USA Government































 navigate econintersect.com

Blogs

Analysis Blog
News Blog
Investing Blog
Opinion Blog
Precious Metals Blog
Markets Blog
Video of the Day
Weather

Newspapers

Asia / Pacific
Europe
Middle East / Africa
Americas
USA Government
     

RSS Feeds / Social Media

Combined Econintersect Feed
Google+
Facebook
Twitter
Digg

Free Newsletter

Marketplace - Books & More

Economic Forecast

Content Contribution

Contact

About

  Top Economics Site

Investing.com Contributor TalkMarkets Contributor Finance Blogs Free PageRank Checker Active Search Results Google+

This Web Page by Steven Hansen ---- Copyright 2010 - 2017 Econintersect LLC - all rights reserved