09 Dec 16
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziOur system of governing has more than one set of checks and balances... it is not limited to the three main branches of government. I'm wondering if you went to and read that second link you posted in your OP, or if you simply picked up on the word "Faithless".
that's what i am confused about. checks and balances are in place so that one state power doesn't become tyrannical, doesn't jeopardizes democracy. so that the executive branch doesn't legislate. so that courts stay independent.
these electors are allowed to decide in opposition to the will of the people. that is anti-democratic. they are no more dem ...[text shortened]... han a dictator is.
that's why you make no sense when you ask me about checks and balances.
The fact that the US is divided into states which are allowed a certain degree of autonomy and self direction can also fall under the definition of "checks and balances". If we had only one ruler with absolute power (a king or dictator) and the entire country was one giant state under the absolute rule of that one person, then the idea of checks and balances would only be an idea... an idea that didn't actually exist.
Do you know what I'm talking about now?
09 Dec 16
Originally posted by Zahlanzi...these electors are allowed to decide in opposition to the will of the people
that's what i am confused about. checks and balances are in place so that one state power doesn't become tyrannical, doesn't jeopardizes democracy. so that the executive branch doesn't legislate. so that courts stay independent.
these electors are allowed to decide in opposition to the will of the people. that is anti-democratic. they are no more dem ...[text shortened]... han a dictator is.
that's why you make no sense when you ask me about checks and balances.
No, they are allowed to decide in opposition to the will of their political party.
Electors are chosen by the political party they are already affiliated with. An elector is expected to vote in favor of their political party. But they can instead decide to vote for the other candidate if they think their own party's candidate is unworthy. They are called 'faithless' because they are expected to vote for a particular candidate, but instead vote for the other party's candidate. It's only happened one other time, so a candidate has to be pretty darn bad for important members of their own party to reject them.
By the way, you wanna know how I know all of this?
I read the link you posted in your OP, that's how.
09 Dec 16
Originally posted by lemon lime"By the way, you wanna know how I know all of this?"
[b]...these electors are allowed to decide in opposition to the will of the people
No, they are allowed to decide in opposition to the will of their political party.
Electors are chosen by the political party they are already affiliated with. An elector is expected to vote in favor of their political party. But they can instead decide to ...[text shortened]... ay, you wanna know how I know all of this?
I read the link you posted in your OP, that's how.[/b]
can you say you "know" something when you completely misunderstood the source?
"I read the link you posted in your OP, that's how"
normally, considering your conclusions, i would doubt that. yet you being you, there is a distinct possibility you did actually read it and lack the mental capacity to understand it.
09 Dec 16
Originally posted by ZahlanziThe use of the word "thing" as you have done here only puts your ignorance on display.
http://www.hamiltonelectors.com/
it seems these electors chaps can vote however the hell they want
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
I ask again:
How is this still a thing?
Originally posted by Zahlanzi:'(
"By the way, you wanna know how I know all of this?"
can you say you "know" something when you completely misunderstood the source?
"I read the link you posted in your OP, that's how"
normally, considering your conclusions, i would doubt that. yet you being you, there is a distinct possibility you did actually read it and lack the mental capacity to understand it.
Wouldn't it be great if we could change the rules of the game after the fact?