Extremely unlikely, but not impossible...
While Barack Obama's and Mitt Romney's presidential campaigns rage on toward November 6, another campaign has been under way for some time, one that's mostly out of the public's eye.
An investigation by The Associated Press last month revealed that as many as five Republican electors expressed uncertainty whether they would actually vote for Mitt Romney if he carried their state. These electors appear to be unhappy with Romney and continue to show support for his primary rival Rep. Ron Paul.
In the wake of this news, one of the electors abruptly resigned her position. On another front, a Minnesota elector suggested that he may not vote for the Romney-Ryan ticket if the candidates fail to furnish their birth certificates (in an effort to put pressure on all candidates to furnish their birth certificates).
These potentially rogue electors would effectively disenfranchise hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of voters. The 2012 election will probably be very close. Consequently, in the worst of scenarios, a "faithless" vote might not only disenfranchise voters but alter the outcome of the race. While unlikely, this begs the question: Why do presidential electors still have independence in our current presidential selection process?
Read the rest
here.
2 comments:
I'd favor increasing the importance of the Electoral College in facilitating a greater departure from direct democracy in Presidential elections. Government-wedded parasites have the same vote as everyone else. Trivializing the popular vote would be a step in the right direction. I'd also favor holding the electors personally responsible for failing to protect our liberty.
The monarchist in me would call your proposal a modest step in the right direction.
Post a Comment