[EL] There is no such thing as a "faithless" elector (was replacing Trump ..)

[jon.roland at constitution.org]

It is important to understand what the Constitution requires for the
election of the President of the United States. It is contrary to how
most people think it is supposed to work.

 The original design was for either the state legislature or a popular
election would elect the electors, and that once elected, they would
have sole discretion whom to vote for, subject only to the
constitutional eligibility requirements. The Electoral College was
supposed to be composed of "elder statesmen" whose judgment was
considered superior to that of the people. 

 Along the way we fell into the practice of putting the name of the
candidate on the popular ballot, representing not himself, but a slate
of electors, pledged to vote for him. But such pledge is not
constitutionally required or enforceable by any legislative body.

 Originally, the people were supposed to vote for the electors, whose
names would appear on the ballot. If there were a slate of electors,
there is no need for them to be designated by the name of the ultimate
candidate. The slate could be the "Fido the Dog" slate or the
"Uncommitted" slate. Then it would be up to the voters to find out who
was on such slate. It was not planned that it be the "XYZ Party"
slate, leaving the selection of the electors to party officials.

 There have been many arguments for direct popular election of the
president. I will not repeat them here, but I think that would be a
bad idea. The people are more likely to vote for a demagogue than for
a truly fit person. It is not supposed to be a popularity contest. 
We all know from high school how those turn out.

 What I propose is that election of electors be replaced by a _fetura
_(sortition) process, similar to that used by the Republic of Venice
from 1268 through 1789. I call it _fetura_, the Latin word for
breeding, to emphasize that it would be a multistage process in which
merit selection alternate with random selection, like the breeding of
plants or animals, gradually reducing the pool of candidates to those
thought meritorious, but not those with alliance with any party or
faction. The last stage would be merit election, by votes of the
electors. The merit selection phases along the way would be expected
to weed out those not eligible, and the final weeding would be done
when the electoral votes are counted. Ineligible candidates would be
weeded out of the final count. The only opportunity for judicial
intervention, necessarily by the Supreme Court, would be to enjoin
inauguration of an ineligible candidate. Eligibility is to serve, not
to be elected.

 See http://constitution.org/abus/pres_elig.htm

 None of this would require a constitutional amendment. It could all
be done with ordinary legislation. But that legislation needs to be
adopted. 

 Such a process would have many advantages, but would hopefully elect
not the most popular, but the best able who would reluctantly agree to
serve but who would not seek the office. A Cincinnatus. No more
choices among the worst.

 I have a model constitution, developed for a novel, at
http://constitution.org/reform/us/constitution-us-model.html

 -- Jon

 ----------------------------------------------------------
 Constitution Society http://constitution.org
 11447 Woollcott St twitter.com/lex_rex
 San Antonio, TX 78251 512/299-5001 jon.roland at constitution.org
 ----------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161008/8fe99e51/attachment.html>