RESEARCHES ON ELECTORS

When was the law on the Electoral College decreed and amended? In 1787.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Offi ce of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

[The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certifi cates, and the Votes shall then be counted.

The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the fi ve highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. 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. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.]*

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

What have been the developments in the United States since then? A lot which could affect the way the Constitution should already be written. The mindsets of the officials in 1787 should be definitely different from those of 2016.

So how can the Constitutional provisions be said then to be still applicable until now?

That is very difficult to answer, right?

The big question actually is HOW RELEVANT IS THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE NOW?

Does it really protect the people's right of suffrage?

Does the government respect the right of the people to choose their own officials?

We do not know the mindsets of the officials of 1787 except that they probably had desired order, and that no majority could impose their will on the people.

But in the last elections, we could see that, the people from the rural areas imposed their will through the electors who determined who should win the elections.

Now is that not discrimination, as results show that more people voted for a different individual than the one now purported to be the winner?

When Marcos lost in the 1986 elections, and yet had himself declared as winner, there were many acts he did which gave a semblance of “validity” to his elections. But eventually, he lost to the People Power Movement.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A VOTER AND AN ELECTOR? An elector is only a go between the Citizen and the State. Now, despite all the technological developments on this planet, why should there be a dichotomy between the two? Aren't they one and the same?

But no, the Elector seems to have more important powers than the voter which is anti-democratic.

For Democracy means, a government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people.

Yet the presence of Electors is highly dubious, and makes a mockery of the elections. They are a priviledged class, legitimized, legalized because of a historical basis which has become anachronistic in the light of developments in the more liberated definitions of Democracy.

WHO HAS PROFITTED FROM THIS DICHOTOMY?

Are there researches whether the Electors have really voted for those that the people have chosen?

What about the lifestyles of the Electors, are they still the same before and after the elections? Has there been a study at all that would point to the fact that they did not profit from their having put on the tasks as Electors?

Everyone calls him President-Elect, not the voted President. The electoral college put him there, not the voters. How tragic, indeed.