Quote:
Originally posted by pan6467
While theoritically possible Smooth, I don't ever see that happening.
What happens with the electoral college is that when a state is won the delegates preselected for that nominee go and vote for the man the state and they committed to. Kerry will have a slate of like 21 in Ohio ready and Bush will have his. But in going with your theory, if a state elected one person and their electoral college voted for someone else there would be such an outcry and civil cry that it would definately create severe problems.
|
I don't know if it would happen or not, either. But our opinions on the matter aside, none of that makes the president directly accountable to the people. There may be a hue and cry, but no one could legally or morally do anything about it. Any civil unrest would be squelched and not one legal professional, law enforcement, or legitimate activist agency could say squat against it.
This isn't my theory--it's the way our national election is designed. The fact that the electoral college has historically chosen the same candidate as the people is a matter of their choice, not the people's. The president is in no way directly accountable to the people who vote for him or her--unlike members of Congress.
I don't even know how you see this as a debateable issue. The facts are pretty plainly supporting my contention, this isn't my opinion. I already stated in an earlier post that this was seperate from any of our personal opinions on which body of officials should be more powerful.
The simple, written rule is that both branches of the government are equal. I'm also going to re-iterate that Bush is not the "Executive Branch." He's a part of it. As such, no member of Congress owes him any special deferrence. That's my point and I'll leave it at that, unless you think I have been unclear in something I wrote.