George would put Florida under siege. prisoners in irons
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
321 points (96.5% liked)
United States | News & Politics
1868 readers
572 users here now
Welcome to [email protected], where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Oh phew. I was really hoping to find out what some 18th-century British-Empire traitor’s hot take was.
Eh, he probably feared somebody badass and intimidating.
He'd probably just be embarrassed and confused.
I'm so thankful he's near the end of his life. If all of this shit was happening when Trump was twenty years younger there would be no hope of getting rid of him.
No worries, once these structures are established, there'll be someone to step into the footprints. Being it Musk, Trump Jr. or some other tyrant.
Musk is (thankfully) ineligible to be President, but yes.
Are there similar wickets to be met for VP? If not...
Yes, mainly because the way it was originally designed to work is that all the candidates would run for President and the one who got the second-most votes would become VP (LOL).
Not sure about loopholes further down the line of succession, though. It's supposed to skip over people who aren't eligible, but what if nobody is eligible?
SCOTUS will make sure that doesn’t apply.
If not one of the Trump children, I wonder who Musk’s running mate will be.
Based on current legislation, sure. But that's not set in stone. Russia also had a term limit for its president. Until Putin decided otherwise. Remember, this will be 'the last election'. Maybe Trump just announces the next king once he decides to go.
It's okay, once Trump gets back in next year he will make changes so his pal can succeed him, not to worry.
The fun thing is that on paper that's what the electoral college was supposed to prevent.
It turns out the Founder's fears of democracy are the reason we're having these problems.
Is it? I know this is a theoretical possibility, but do electors even have the right to vote against what their state is having them do? Did any of the "founding fathers" talk about this as a benefit?
do electors even have the right to vote against what their state is having them do?
It depends on the state, but the term is "faithless elector".
Some states allow for them, some immediately replace them if they don't vote as instructed.
When it was created, the electors were not limited to state discretion.
Honestly, what really sold the idea of electors was the "past the post" number. The founders were reluctant to use any system other than 'Congress picks the president', but became convinced that so many people would be running for president, each state's electors would vote for "their state's guy" and the house of reps would get to choose anyway. Meanwhile we could claim to have a system where the people choose.
The founders were reluctant to use any system other than ‘Congress picks the president’
Exactly, and the compromise they eventually settled on was "state legislatures collectively pick the president."
The idea of Electors was simply a result of that, as a workaround for the fact that "one state legislator, one vote" wouldn't work because different states had them representing different numbers of constituents.
It was not initially intended for Electors to be chosen by popular vote.