Acts20.com

I've seen a couple of articles in newspapers, no doubt written by liberal journalists, saying that electors could go against who they said they would vote for and vote for Hillary.The ironic thing is the the Democrat's party was created because electors did not want a man like Andrew Jackson to be president and voted for John Q. Adams and Henry Clay as president and vice president. Jackson campaigned on the 'corrupt bargain' and won.It's actually illegal in most states for electors not to vote for who they stood for. We are talking misdemeanors and $1000 fines, though. If I were on the Supreme court and a case about that came to me, I'd find those fines unconstitutional. According to the Constitution, the electors elect the president. If we don't like it, we can ammend the constitution.Like the house, the electoral college gives less populous states more compromise, and according to the Federalist papers, it is to prevent someone undesirable from being president.The electoral college system, though not functioning as originally intended, saved us from having Gore as president, and probably will now save us for having Hillary Clinton as president. Since Gore wasn't president, he can't take credit for the polar ice caps not being any smaller now than they were in 1979. (That's a lot bigger deal than creating the Internet if you ask me.) If the Democrats were to try to get the electors to vote for Clinton, they'd be fighting against the very thing the party was founded on. Ironically, one of the big issues in the campaigns back then is that Clay dug up Jackson's past about running off with another man's wife and eventually marrying her. Jackson, who had bullets in him from dueling, regretted that he didn't kill Henry Clay. His campaign accused Clay of being involved in hiring prostitutes for diplomats. Historians have said that the difference between the two sets of accusations were that Clay's were completely true and the Jackson campaign's accusations were false. But it is kind of interesting to consider the character of the first president the Democrats fielded and the issue it organized around

Henry Clay was a Hamiltonian jerk. A man who devoted his whole life to influencing the influence of the Federal Government. The charges of corrupt bargain were true. Jackson I have mixed feelings about. Though by far one of the most adamant Presidents concerning strict construction, he gave the Hamiltonians a weapon to use later by his stance on the nature of the Union expressed during the Nullification Crisis. He should have used South Carolina's position as leverage against the Hamiltonians

. Henry Clay was a Hamiltonian jerk. A man who devoted his whole life to increasing the influence of the Federal Government. The charges of corrupt bargain were true. Jackson I have mixed feelings about. Though by far one of the most adamant Presidents concerning strict construction, he gave the Hamiltonians a weapon to use later by his stance on the nature of the Union expressed during the Nullification Crisis. He should have used South Carolina's position as leverage against the Hamiltonians. Instead we'll see Lincoln reading from Jackson's script a couple of decades later as justification for putting down the rebellion

Correc

My title was in error. It did go the house. Jackson got the highest number of electors, but not a clear majority. I don't see how what happened was a 'corrupt bargain.' What some of the newspapers are suggesting about persuading electors to defect would go far beyond what Jackson complained about

After the election was thrown to the House of Representatives, I can see how Speaker of the House Clay selling his support to JQA for the promise of a cabinet position could be construed as corruption

After the election was thrown to the House of Representatives. I can see how Clay selling his support to JQA for the promise of a cabinet position could be construed as corruption. Why? Wasn't the vote up to the House? How else is an elected legistlative body like this supposed to work

After the election was thrown to the House of Representatives. I can see how Clay selling his support to JQA for the promise of a cabinet position could be construed as corruption. Why? Wasn't the vote up to the House? How else is an elected legistlative body like this supposed to work? It was up to the House, but Clay, being the Speaker, had allot of influence in the House. JQA promised him a cabinet position if he could use his influence as Speaker to persuade enough House members to support JQA over Jackson. Remember, this was not party politics as all 4 candidates had been from the same party. This was cronyism. I can only imagine the things Clay had to promise to the House members to get them to support JQA, all so he could be Secretary of State

Cronyism? That's the way the system works

As Rush emphasizes, it is the Democrat party, not the Democratic party