In an effort to create as much diversification and dilution of power as possible the Framers wanted no insiders, no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States be involved in selecting the President. But political parties being organized as they are, elected officials and people holding offices of trust and profit are part of their hierarchy, and these people have succeeded in making the Electors nothing more then party lackeys, that they make take a party loyalty oath to vote the party line, making them proxies and surrogates for those forbidden to be an Elector, thereby trashing another part of the Constitution.
Again to diversify and prevent the accumulation of power the “Framers” gave each state the right to select its Presidential Electors in any manner. But today, because “We The People” have allowed, aided and tolerated two major political unions to amass the power to control it. They have rigged it to the point that if you’re not a member of one of these two unions you might as well forget it. One thing in being part of a union is you lose you independence and become dependent on it. If that’s what we want, that’s what we got.
Here is a Florida statute, a product of the self serving two union system, that illustrates the typical manner in which the states nominates its Presidential Electors, that nullifies the Framers reasoning for their very being.
“Statute 103.021 Nomination for presidential electors.--Candidates for presidential electors shall be nominated in the following manner:
(1) The Governor shall nominate the presidential electors of each political party. He or she shall nominate only the electors recommended by the state executive committee of their political party. Each such elector shall be a qualified elector of the party he or she represents who has taken an oath that he or she will vote for the candidates of the party that he or she is nominated to represent.”
This is one strange law. The governor can only nominate people as Electors that are biased to a special interest group. And to further assure their allegiance, must take an oath, if elected, to vote the party line. How these nominees, if elected, can feel honored in anyway is beyond me. This is like what we ridiculed the Russians and more recently the Iraqis about, who were given the opportunity to vote in an election where only the party line could prevail. State laws like this create a similar situation, of the 21,291 Electoral votes cast in our Country’s history there has been only nine that have deviated from the party line. That comes out to be 99.96 percent or our Presidential Electors over the years that have voted the party line. How’s that for the Politicos having power and control over a group? I wonder if there’s another group they may have control over, like maybe, “We the People”.
We have sent envoys around the world, with a self-rightist demeanor monitoring elections. Who in the Hell do we think we are when we tolerate laws like this being on the books. Letting statutes like this remain in force is a mockery to the Constitution, and we should all hang our heads in shame. What purpose is there to select Electors that can’t select? My interpretation of an Elector is one that has the right, power and privilege to express their view in an election. This statute takes away any Electors right to express their own personal opinion; this nullifies the main purpose for their existence. How can the Electors nominated and selected under this statute meet the definition of even being called an Elector for the purpose intended by the Constitution? A better description of them would be lackeys. If the Constitution said, partisan, biased, bigoted prejudiced, political lackeys should elect the President, then, I would have no argument.
No where in the Constitution are the states given the authority to add the qualification that a person be a member of a political party to get a vote from a Presidential Elector, as this law does. But, that’s how the politicos want it, so that’s the way it is folks.
The one thing the Framers wanted, that the President and the Electors be independent, is the one thing that the two party system will never, never allow. In my youth I was taught and thought that anyone could grow up to be President, but I have come to learn this is not true, no free thinking independent person as the Framers intended to fill the job, stands a snow balls chance in Hell of ever becoming President under the present system.
Section two of statute 103.021 isn’t much better it states:
(2) “The names of the presidential electors shall not be printed on the general election ballot, but the names of the actual candidates for President and Vice President for whom the presidential electors will vote if elected shall be printed on the ballot.” - This section of the statute calls for electing people not on a ballot, that the general public doesn’t even know. What’s the logic behind this statute? Seems like some kind of a flimflam scam to me. And this section goes on to repeat the obligation of the Electors to vote the party line if elected, making sure they get the message that they have no choice. This law and those similar, in my opinion subvert the Constitution, but yet the Supreme Court has never mustered up enough fortitude to make a finite decision either way on laws like this. Crazy Man, Crazy!
Article II, Sec. 1, Cl. 3:
Three phrases in this clause clearly explain the Framers intent.
1. The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons,
2. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President,
3. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President.
The Constitutions basic game plan was very simple, each of the Electors two votes counted equally, as a vote for President, who ever got the most votes became President, and whoever came in second became Vice-president. No one voted for Vice-president, no one sought the office. This was not to be a team event. Every one receiving an Electoral vote, was an opponent of any other receiving a vote, not a mate. One got the Gold the other the Silver. The Framers wanted the two top men for the two top jobs, elected together for the same term, as called for in Article II, Cl. 1, which Cl. 2 & 3 of Article II did. The winner to head the Executive Branch, the runner up to head the Senate, in the Legislative Branch, an example of the “Separation of Powers” at work,
It should also be noted that this third paragraph of Article II stated: “And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each;” It wasn’t the intent of the Framers for this all or nothing vote for the President by the Electors in all the states except Maine and Nebraska. The all or nothing vote makes it much simpler and easier for the two party system to control. This is the way the politicos want it, so this is the way it is.