Comments on: The electoral college – pros and cons

By: Ron C.

Ron C. — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:21:00 +0000

David Brooks made a interesting point on election night. He pointed out that the present system forces candidates to go to battleground states and appeal to a wide range of voters. Otherwise they could speak only to their base supporters, with a likely result of the winner being the president of only some, not all Americans.

By: Jonathan_Duhamel

Jonathan_Duhamel — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:53:00 +0000

The situation of impeachment of a sitting, re-elected president has never come up, but we can take some guidance from the situation of a candidate dying between the election and the meeting of the electoral college. According to Wikipedia: “In the election of 1872, losing Democratic candidate Horace Greeley died during this time interval which resulted in Democratic disarray, but the Greeley electors were able to split their votes for different alternate candidates. A situation in which the winning candidate died has never happened. In the election of 1912, Vice President Sherman died shortly before the election when it was too late for states to remove his name from their ballots; accordingly, Sherman was listed posthumously, but the eight electoral votes that Sherman would have received were cast instead for Nicholas Murray Butler.” In other words, the electoral system allows flexibility.

By: Bob

Bob — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:10:00 +0000

What would happen if the sitting President who just won re-election in November were to be impeached before the electors voted in December? Could the electors change the outcome of the election to favor the challenger?