this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2024
210 points (82.2% liked)

Memes

45704 readers
1203 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] paultimate14@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Out of the tens of thousands of electors in history, there's been just over a hundred faithless electors.

And, to quote from your link:

They have never swung an election

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

They have never swung an election

And the source for that comment is a Newsweek article by Alexandra Hutzler that has no cited sources. I guess this is why we don't use Wikipedia in school.

[–] paultimate14@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Fair enough, I was just rolling with what you brought.

Does CNN work better? Or CBS?

I think I would agree with you on a lot: faithless electors should be legislated out of existence and the electoral college sucks. Where I disagree is that I don't think this is significant enough to discourage voting. Faithless Electors are more of a trivia question than anything meaningful to American politics.

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Oh I'm not discouraging voting I'm just saying that the electoral college is a problem, faithless electors are and can be a big part of that problem, and they need to be addressed. Even if they haven't swung an election all on their own yet, they have the ability to. I personally also don't like the idea of votes being weighed differently because of the state you live in and it's frustrating to see things like the popular vote not line up with the winner of the election.