Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

The SC ruled in favor of empowering a states political parties to "require" formal pledges from Presidential Electors (Ray v Blair, 343 US 214) However,21 states still do not require their members to vote for their party's candidate! I believe it should be mandatory and "all" states "parties" electors should be "required" to make formal pledges to vote for the candidate of their respective parties.The reason for this should be obvious.Faithless Electors have far too much individual power and can work "outside" of their designated party.The possibility of corruption arises.While a single elector may not change the outcome of an election it remains "possible",there certainly is room for improvment here.The EC already has a good deal of power without including the faithless elector issue.The Faithless Elector is free to vote against not only the will of the people but also against the will of their own party! They become far too powerful and that smacks of tyranny not democracy.

Originally Posted by Adept1

Perhaps "faithless electors" should only be allowed to NOT vote rather than to elect someone else. To use their power to keep someone unworthy out and perhaps make different candidates required. Similar to a "none of the above" vote box.

Originally Posted by cnredd

I know you want to discount Kos's importance to the Democratic Party because they give them a bad name, but you'd be wrong...Kos is VERY important to them...

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

The SC ruled in favor of empowering a states political parties to "require" formal pledges from Presidential Electors (Ray v Blair, 343 US 214) However,21 states still do not require their members to vote for their party's candidate!