Georgia Republican says he might withhold electoral college vote from Trump

[Speedy]

Burn it all down and go with a national vote.

[Speedy]

We have an electoral college for a reason; one of those reasons is to remove us a step from a direct democracy.

Obviously, the convention since 1920 or so is that all states award electors to the PV winner of the state: Maine, Nebraska, Dixiecrat shenanigans, and the occasional faithless elector notwithstanding.

That said, the system is there as an important absolute last-ditch check against the election of a crazy demagogue like Trump.  Thankfully, it's not one that we've had to use before, as the parties have generally done a good job of not picking crazy people since Aaron Burr left office.  But it's one that exists.

Whether the damage to American democracy from the resulting departure from the Electoral convention would be worse than that from electing Trump, I don't know.  But, given Georgia laws, that's up to the electors to decide by their own conscience.

I agree that the reason behind having an electoral college is very fair. However, as you've said yourself, the convention of what electors are "supposed" to do has become so solidified that an election result altered by the electors could prove even more damaging than a neurotic demagogue being awarded the victory. Beyond that, my real distaste for the college is not that it acts as a safety measure against the whims of direct democracy, but rather that it effectively distorts the demographics/interests/concerns of the voting public by reducing the amount of voters whose votes actually matter.

[Speedy]

We have an electoral college for a reason; one of those reasons is to remove us a step from a direct democracy.

Obviously, the convention since 1920 or so is that all states award electors to the PV winner of the state: Maine, Nebraska, Dixiecrat shenanigans, and the occasional faithless elector notwithstanding.

That said, the system is there as an important absolute last-ditch check against the election of a crazy demagogue like Trump.  Thankfully, it's not one that we've had to use before, as the parties have generally done a good job of not picking crazy people since Aaron Burr left office.  But it's one that exists.

Whether the damage to American democracy from the resulting departure from the Electoral convention would be worse than that from electing Trump, I don't know.  But, given Georgia laws, that's up to the electors to decide by their own conscience.

I agree that the reason behind having an electoral college is very fair. However, as you've said yourself, the convention of what electors are "supposed" to do has become so solidified that an election result altered by the electors could prove even more damaging than a neurotic demagogue being awarded the victory. Beyond that, my real distaste for the college is not that it acts as a safety measure against the whims of direct democracy, but rather that it effectively distorts the demographics/interests/concerns of the voting public by reducing the amount of voters whose votes actually matter.

I think having Mr. "I think, for me, nuclear is just the power, the devastation is very important to me" in the White House would be more damaging than anything the electoral college might do.

In no way am I trying to dismiss the damage that a Trump presidency would cause to the American institutions. Rather, I just think it's also worth giving serious consideration to the extent of the damage that a collegiate coup and the ensuing political chaos would do as well, especially if it required a sizable bloc to accomplish it (not that such a scenario is anything more than theory in this election for a variety of reasons).