Will Republican state legislatures directly select their electors?

[Telesquare]

Do you think Republican state legislatures will decide to go full "automatic victory" mode and directly appoint their Presidential Electors?

[TML]

Were that to happen, the US would be considered either a “hybrid regime” or “authoritarian” by the Democracy Index.

[Telesquare]

Were that to happen, the US would be considered either a “hybrid regime” or “authoritarian” by the Democracy Index.

I mean, the people would still vote for their state legislators, so it's not completely authoritarian.

[Skill and Chance]

Were that to happen, the US would be considered either a “hybrid regime” or “authoritarian” by the Democracy Index.

I mean, the people would still vote for their state legislators, so it's not completely authoritarian.

It would be authoritarian to do it after the fact because the legislature doesn't like the results or to do it only in a couple of states expected to vote the opposite way at the federal level.

However, if all states did this, would it be much different than having a prime minister system with geographic districts?  You do get to vote for legislators who presumably endorse a specific party/candidate for president.  Doing it in the state legislatures also seems better than having most presidential elections be resolved in congress, because state senates must have (very nearly) equal population districts.

[TodayJunior]

Careful what you wish for. If the gop tries this, they will rue the day they did bc it will awake a sleeping giant on the Democratic side giving more attention to down ballot races where republicans still have the structural advantage.

[Telesquare]

Were that to happen, the US would be considered either a “hybrid regime” or “authoritarian” by the Democracy Index.

I mean, the people would still vote for their state legislators, so it's not completely authoritarian.

It would be authoritarian to do it after the fact because the legislature doesn't like the results or to do it only in a couple of states expected to vote the opposite way at the federal level.

However, if all states did this, would it be much different than having a prime minister system with geographic districts?  You do get to vote for legislators who presumably endorse a specific party/candidate for president.  Doing it in the state legislatures also seems better than having most presidential elections be resolved in congress, because state senates must have (very nearly) equal population districts.

I wasn't talking about "after the fact", like disregarding the state's popular vote. I was talking about if they decided to simply not hold a Prez election like what South Carolina did every election until Reconstruction.

[Non Swing Voter]

I put nothing past the GOP and its garbage politics. 

[pbrower2a]

Were that to happen, the US would be considered either a “hybrid regime” or “authoritarian” by the Democracy Index.

I mean, the people would still vote for their state legislators, so it's not completely authoritarian.

... but in gerrymandered elections for state pols in which a city like Atlanta might be split to a large extent into narrow cones whose districts extend to the Atlantic Ocean or the state lines so that votes from Greater Atlanta would be diluted. Such would be grossly undemocratic.   

[Non Swing Voter]

Were that to happen, the US would be considered either a “hybrid regime” or “authoritarian” by the Democracy Index.

I mean, the people would still vote for their state legislators, so it's not completely authoritarian.

... but in gerrymandered elections for state pols in which a city like Atlanta might be split to a large extent into narrow cones whose districts extend to the Atlantic Ocean or the state lines so that votes from Greater Atlanta would be diluted. Such would be grossly undemocratic.   

The GOP will cheer this until the rural areas in Marjorie Taylor Greene's district continue to shrink and are overpowered by Atlanta and then she loses, goes on a 1 year rant about God and election fraud, and makes the GOP look like an even bigger clown caravan than it already is.

[Schiff for Senate]

I think even the GOP has enough honour/sense to avoid doing this. Though who knows, maybe in a couple of decades, if they're very desperate, they may actually resort to it. But doing this would immediately backfire on them in multiple ways as well, so really, the strategic cons outweigh the strategic pros in the long run (to say nothing of how dishonourable and deplorable such a scheme would be).

[S019]

I think even the GOP has enough honour/sense to avoid doing this. Though who knows, maybe in a couple of decades, if they're very desperate, they may actually resort to it. But doing this would immediately backfire on them in multiple ways as well, so really, the strategic cons outweigh the strategic pros in the long run (to say nothing of how dishonourable and deplorable such a scheme would be).

By the time that they've lost enough times to consider this, they'd have already lost control of several state legislatures (GA, TX, AZ, etc.).

[Schiff for Senate]

I think even the GOP has enough honour/sense to avoid doing this. Though who knows, maybe in a couple of decades, if they're very desperate, they may actually resort to it. But doing this would immediately backfire on them in multiple ways as well, so really, the strategic cons outweigh the strategic pros in the long run (to say nothing of how dishonourable and deplorable such a scheme would be).

By the time that they've lost enough times to consider this, they'd have already lost control of several state legislatures (GA, TX, AZ, etc.).

The GOP can easily gerrymander those state's districts to keep themselves in power.