How does the electoral college factor into the voting/morality questions?

[Ana_v]

In light of the questions on CAF concerning the quandry that faithful Catholics find themselves in, in deciding who to vote for in the 2012 election]

1. Given that in the United States, voters do not elect a presidential candiate into office, but rather elect presidential electors (who, in turn, elect presidential candidates), how does this effect the morality of who one casts a vote for?
2. Who commits the graver offense (assuming they are not equally grave, which is itself open to debate ): the Catholic (average) voter who casts a vote for Obama, or the Catholic elector who casts a vote for Obama?

a. Suppose the Catholic elector is deliberating between voting in a manner consistent with the results of the popular vote in his/her state (i.e. voting for the candidate that won the popular vote, “voting for whom the people want”), or, voting contrary to the majority wish: if the candidate being considered is Obama, we would say that the moral obligation of the Catholic elector is to vote against him, notwithstanding that normatively an elector is committed to voting for the winner of the popular vote in his/her state, correct?

 

[Tallguy88]

The way the electoral college is set up, each party chooses it’s own electors. When it’s determined which candidate won a state, that party’s electors vote, the losing elector’s don’t. Also, state electoral votes are winner-takes-all. So if Obama wins Missouri 60/40 he still gets all of Missouri’s electoral votes, they are not divided up.

This means that electors are just voting the way their constituents have decided. So they have virtually no moral responsibility for their votes.

Edited to say: Also, I believe that most states have laws requiring the electors to vote the way the popular vote went.

 

[sedonaman]

In light of the questions on CAF concerning the quandry that faithful Catholics find themselves in, in deciding who to vote for in the 2012 election]
…
a. Suppose the Catholic elector is deliberating between voting in a manner consistent with the results of the popular vote in his/her state (i.e. voting for the candidate that won the popular vote, “voting for whom the people want”), or, voting contrary to the majority wish: …

How would you know this? When you vote for an elector, you are voting for someone committed to vote for a particular presidential candidate, BUT only on the first ballot. If subsequent ballots are required, he can change his commitment.

 

[Ana_v]

How would you know this? When you vote for an elector, you are voting for someone committed to vote for a particular presidential candidate, BUT only on the first ballot. If subsequent ballots are required, he can change his commitment.

Any deliberation would be invisible to us. It would be occurring in the elector’s conscience.

The point I am getting as is: does being an elector dispense one from the moral obligation to vote against a candidate that supports intrinisic evils/ is the “greater of the evils” , in the event that such a candidate is the one whom wins the state’s popular vote? I don’t think it does, but I’d like to read what others think.

 

[Ana_v]

Edited to say: Also, I believe that most states have laws requiring the electors to vote the way the popular vote went.

But, we are to obey the laws of our nation/state to the extent that they do not conflict with the moral law; when they do, the moral law takes precedence.

Here is what I found on how electors vote:

**Are there restrictions on who the Electors can vote for? **

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties’ nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called “faithless Electors”; may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party’s candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.

Source: archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html#restrictions

 

[exnihilo]

Who commits the graver offense (assuming they are not equally grave, which is itself open to debate ): the Catholic (average) voter who casts a vote for Obama, or the Catholic elector who casts a vote for Obama?

I would think the voter would be committing the more serious sin, if it is a sin to vote for that candidate. The average voter thinks his vote has power so in his mind he thinks he is actively helping the candidate to win an election. As you point out the electoral college changes things, but most voters dont know anything about this. (That is why modern democracy is so terrible. The voters are extremely ignorant) The elector is just doing their duty as commissioned by the state. They are acting like any other agent of the state. If a candidate is so terrible an elector should not vote for him then it would be far worse of a sin for those other members of the state who aid that candidate and carry out his commands.

The way the electoral college is set up, each party chooses it’s own electors. When it’s determined which candidate won a state, that party’s electors vote, the losing elector’s don’t. Also, state electoral votes are winner-takes-all. So if Obama wins Missouri 60/40 he still gets all of Missouri’s electoral votes, they are not divided up.

What you say is true in my state, but it is the individual states who decide who is a voter in the college. So unless we have looked into every state’s law I’m not sure we can not make this blanket statement. Also, historically this might have been different since the US was a confederacy at one time but over time has eroded the power of the states and no longer recognizes their sovereignty. For instance in the past state governments nominated their senator. They were not directly elected but rather represented the state’s interests.

 

[sedonaman]

…
The point I am getting as is: does being an elector dispense one from the moral obligation to vote against a candidate that supports intrinisic evils/ is the “greater of the evils” , in the event that such a candidate is the one whom wins the state’s popular vote? I don’t think it does, but I’d like to read what others think.

I’m not sure what you mean. An elector has already pledged who he is going to vote for by the time you see him on the ballot. [You don’t actually “see” him since the ballot says words like, “Elector pledged to candidate X”.] If he is pledged to vote, say, for a known pro-abortion candidate, we are obligated to vote for another elector who is pledged to a candidate closer to our beliefs, since that is how a winner is determined.

If an elector wants to follow a well-formed conscience, why would he pledge to vote for, say, a pro-abortion candidate in the first place?

Why is this so difficult?

 

[exnihilo]

I’m not sure what you mean. An elector has already pledged who he is going to vote for by the time you see him on the ballot. [You don’t actually “see” him since the ballot says words like, “Elector pledged to candidate X”.] If he is pledged to vote, say, for a known pro-abortion candidate, we are obligated to vote for another elector who is pledged to a candidate closer to our beliefs, since that is how a winner is determined.

If an elector wants to follow a well-formed conscience, why would he pledge to vote for, say, a pro-abortion candidate in the first place?

There is an issue of timing. I think most state laws are party oriented. I think the party nominates electors. When does one pledge to be an elector? Is it before the candidate is known? If so then the elector has not pledged with any knowledge of who they are pledged to vote for.