• JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      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?

      • BossDj@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

  • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    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.

    • rbn@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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.

        • rbn@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

        • jaybone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          2 months ago

          SCOTUS will make sure that doesn’t apply.

          If not one of the Trump children, I wonder who Musk’s running mate will be.

        • Raverbunny@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s okay, once Trump gets back in next year he will make changes so his pal can succeed him, not to worry.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            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?

  • JaggedRobotPubes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Eh, he probably feared somebody badass and intimidating.

    He’d probably just be embarrassed and confused.

  • lars@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    Oh phew. I was really hoping to find out what some 18th-century British-Empire traitor’s hot take was.