In article <Xns9AD0EAF1E3118dtennerameritechnet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> on Thu, 03
Jul 2008 23:05:46 -0500, dtenner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(David Tenner) wrote:
> [1] As early as 1796, the first contested presidential election,
> the original assumption that electors would use their own judgment
> was already obsolete, and the conduct of Samuel Miles (a
> Pennsylvania Federalist elector who voted for Jefferson and
> Pinckney instead of Adams and Pinckney) provoked exactly the same
> kind of indignation seen in the cases of more recent "faithless
> electors." As one angry Pennsylvanian wrote in a letter to the
> *Gazette of the United States*: "What, do I choose Samuel Miles to
> determine for me whether John Adams or Thomas Jefferson shall be
> President? No! I choose him to act, not to think."
Could the electoral college have been constructed to be more significant?
Perhaps if the college convened in the capital (ie in DC once it has been
built) and therefore existed as a collegiate body, and then remained in
existence for the full term, with perhaps a responsibility to scrutinise
the presidency and the operations of the executive branch.
If most investigations and committees were collegiate rather than
congressional (and the congress concentrated on legislation) then the
college would have a powerbase to build up some significance. Perhaps
when the first President dies in office, the VP becomes Acting Pres and
then the college elects him President, electing a new VP at the same
time?
--
Richard Gadsden
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it" - Attributed to Voltaire
|
