Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
News SCOTUS to Decide if EC Voters Must Vote for Winner of State Popular Vote
Author Message
CrimsonPhantom Offline
CUSA Curator
*

Posts: 41,334
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 2371
I Root For: NM State
Location:
Post: #1
SCOTUS to Decide if EC Voters Must Vote for Winner of State Popular Vote
Quote:On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that would decide whether electoral college electors must vote for the winner of their state's popular vote. Half the states currently have laws requiring electors to vote for the candidate who wins the popular vote in their state.

Electors who do not vote in accordance to the winner of their state's popular vote are known as "faithless electors." According to NBC News, the so-called problem of faithless electors has never really been an actual problem before. In fact, most states simply throw out the ballot of an elector who doesn't follow the state's popular vote.

But in 2016, the Democrats ran such a rotten candidate that several electors in states carried by Hillary Clinton cast their ballots for someone else. One elector in Colorado voted for John Kasich, one in Hawaii voted for Bernie Sanders, and four in Washington state voted for two different people -- three for Colin Powell and one for Faith Spotted Eagle, the name of a Native American activist, not Elizabeth Warren. Other Democratic electors contemplated voting differently but were reportedly pressured into voting for Clinton. Colorado simply replaced its errant elector with one that would vote for Hillary, while Washington state fined their independent-thinking electors for violating state law.

The Washington state Supreme Court ruled against the electors who challenged the fines imposed upon them. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Steven Gonzalez took issue with the court's decision, arguing "[t]he Constitution provides the state only with the power to appoint, leaving the electors with the discretion to vote their conscience."

While states can choose their own electors and require them to pledge certain loyalties, once the electors form the electoral college they are no longer serving a state function but a federal one.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Justice Gonzalez's dissent, ruling that electors can vote for any legitimate candidate they choose.

"The states' power to appoint electors does not include the power to remove them or nullify their votes," the 10th Circuit declared.

Just like Arizonans voted to send Jeff Flake to the Senate, but, once there, the voters could not nullify Flake's votes or fine the senator for voting his conscience, as much as the voters may have wanted to.

In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state laws requiring electors to abide by the popular vote of the state did not violate the Constitution, but the high court never ruled whether the states can enforce those pledges after the fact.

The lawyer for the Washington State electors, Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig is hoping the case will focus attention on what he characterizes as shortcomings in the Electoral College when it comes to reflecting the outcome of the popular vote.

“It could also convince both sides that it is finally time to step up and modify the Constitution to address this underlying problem,” Professor Lessig said. The professor suggested such fixes as the National Popular Vote plan or even a constitutional amendment.

Because a Democrat lost the last presidential election, surely something must be wrong with the Constitution that allowed it to happen.

The case goes before the court this spring and a decision is expected by the end of June.

They must vote for what the vote was. This could be a problem with delegates suffering from TDS.

This will be the ultimate test to see how radical the Supremes are. If they do not uphold the constitution, then it might be time to flood DC with protests.
01-18-2020 03:02 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


stinkfist Offline
nuts zongo's in the house
*

Posts: 68,369
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 6859
I Root For: Mustard Buzzards
Location: who knows?
Post: #2
RE: SCOTUS to Decide if EC Voters Must Vote for Winner of State Popular Vote
WHAT TOOK SO LONG

oh yeah, a SCOTUS with a fk'n clue...

the state(s) 'conglomerate' that's been forming is beyond a pet peeve in my book....

Quote: but, once there, the voters could not nullify Flake's votes or fine the senator for voting his conscience, as much as the voters may have wanted to.

In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state laws requiring electors to abide by the popular vote of the state did not violate the Constitution, but the high court never ruled whether the states can enforce those pledges after the fact.

#theCrux
01-18-2020 03:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
olliebaba Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 28,100
Joined: Jul 2007
Reputation: 2149
I Root For: Christ
Location: El Paso
Post: #3
RE: SCOTUS to Decide if EC Voters Must Vote for Winner of State Popular Vote
Boy oh boy. By not voting for the candidate with the popular vote can besiege the electoral colleges with Liberal wussies who will nullify thousands of votes of the people. In other words that person can become judge and jury in the electoral process. I hope that doesn't happen. Even in Red states anyone can nullify those voting for Trump because of their TDS and give it to any Socialist running.
01-18-2020 04:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chargeradio Offline
Vamos Morados
*

Posts: 7,466
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 121
I Root For: ALA, KY, USA
Location: Louisville, KY
Post: #4
RE: SCOTUS to Decide if EC Voters Must Vote for Winner of State Popular Vote
Morbid question to consider, but what if the winning candidate dies? Given both Clinton and Trump had their election night gatherings in the same city, we could have had a significant crisis had there been a terrorist attack on New York City that night.

The Electoral College would be the backstop in such a disaster scenario.
01-19-2020 08:33 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Native Georgian Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,512
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 1024
I Root For: TULANE+GA.STATE
Location: Decatur GA
Post: #5
RE: SCOTUS to Decide if EC Voters Must Vote for Winner of State Popular Vote
(01-19-2020 08:33 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  Morbid question to consider, but what if the winning candidate dies? Given both Clinton and Trump had their election night gatherings in the same city, we could have had a significant crisis had there been a terrorist attack on New York City that night.

The Electoral College would be the backstop in such a disaster scenario.
Not such a far-fetched scenario. In 1872 (President Grant re-elected), the second-place candidate Horace Greeley died on November 29, after the election but prior to the convening of the Electoral College. His votes were dispersed among other people who had not been candidates in the election.
01-19-2020 10:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Claw Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,898
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 1225
I Root For: Memphis
Location: Orangeville HELP!
Post: #6
RE: SCOTUS to Decide if EC Voters Must Vote for Winner of State Popular Vote
Don't some states distribute their votes proportionately by number of votes received?
01-19-2020 12:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #7
RE: SCOTUS to Decide if EC Voters Must Vote for Winner of State Popular Vote
(01-19-2020 12:35 PM)Claw Wrote:  Don't some states distribute their votes proportionately by number of votes received?

Two states (Nebraska and Maine) elect two electors by the results of the state overall tally. The winner in each Congressional District gets the results of the Congressional District.

Take Maine, with CD 1 and CD 2. Assume R wins CD1 by 2k votes, and D wins CD2 by 2100 votes.

R gets 1 elector, D gets 3 electors.

Those are the only 2 that dont do a 'winner take all' for a slate of electors.

But, nothing prohibits a proportional allotment within a state. Completely up to the state legislature.

Added this b/c I cant resist ---- just to get a response from Stinkfist: nothing prohibits a state from choosing their own electors based on the national total as a winner take-all, or on the national total as a proportional take, either. Sorry, I cant pass up needling stink...... 03-wink
(This post was last modified: 01-19-2020 12:45 PM by tanqtonic.)
01-19-2020 12:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


solohawks Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,782
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 810
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Wilmington, NC
Post: #8
RE: SCOTUS to Decide if EC Voters Must Vote for Winner of State Popular Vote
Fascinating case

One could argue an elector is a position like a Senator or Congressman

You cant change their votes so why should you be able to change an elector's

The intent of the electoral college was to allow a leader to be elected free of political garbage. Like a counsel of Cardinals electing a pope.
01-19-2020 12:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fort Bend Owl Online
Legend
*

Posts: 28,343
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 448
I Root For: An easy win
Location:

The Parliament Awards
Post: #9
RE: SCOTUS to Decide if EC Voters Must Vote for Winner of State Popular Vote
I'm not sure where the original story in the first post came from, but in 2016, seven electors were able to successfully cast a faithless vote. Five were on the Democratic side and two were on the Republican side. To frame this strictly as a Democratic issue is wrong (I'm not saying subsequent posts in this thread aren't accurate, but that original quoted story sounds like it came from a very partial news source).
01-19-2020 01:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stinkfist Offline
nuts zongo's in the house
*

Posts: 68,369
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 6859
I Root For: Mustard Buzzards
Location: who knows?
Post: #10
RE: SCOTUS to Decide if EC Voters Must Vote for Winner of State Popular Vote
(01-19-2020 12:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(01-19-2020 12:35 PM)Claw Wrote:  Don't some states distribute their votes proportionately by number of votes received?

Two states (Nebraska and Maine) elect two electors by the results of the state overall tally. The winner in each Congressional District gets the results of the Congressional District.

Take Maine, with CD 1 and CD 2. Assume R wins CD1 by 2k votes, and D wins CD2 by 2100 votes.

R gets 1 elector, D gets 3 electors.

Those are the only 2 that dont do a 'winner take all' for a slate of electors.

But, nothing prohibits a proportional allotment within a state. Completely up to the state legislature.

Added this b/c I cant resist ---- just to get a response from Stinkfist: nothing prohibits a state from choosing their own electors based on the national total as a winner take-all, or on the national total as a proportional take, either. Sorry, I cant pass up needling stink...... 03-wink

lol....

again, I have no problem how states choose their electors or how they divide such within.....it's building the 'conglomeration'....or better stated, other states having influence on others that's my beef moving forward....

but you already knew that, ya? 03-wink 04-cheers

MOON MAN DRINKS
01-19-2020 01:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


pkptigers07 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,772
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 127
I Root For: Memphis
Location: Memphis, TN
Post: #11
RE: SCOTUS to Decide if EC Voters Must Vote for Winner of State Popular Vote
So if I understand correctly, those challenging the state law as requiring each elector to vote according to their states election results are doing so in hopes of the Supreme Court nullifying such laws in order to sway public opinion against the electoral college?

I’m guessing these same folks are in favor of the National popular vote interstate compact as well. It’ll be hilarious to see the SC uphold such laws which should make the popular vote compact unconstitutional
01-19-2020 02:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kronke Offline
Banned

Posts: 29,379
Joined: Apr 2010
I Root For: Arsenal / StL
Location: Missouri
Post: #12
RE: SCOTUS to Decide if EC Voters Must Vote for Winner of State Popular Vote
Of course this is a democrat issue.

They’re the ones that want to decide the presidency by a national popular vote, which incentivizes trash heaps like california and new york to continue being sloppy with their voter rolls. They incentivize illegal immigration while also advocating for their enfranchisement. They push for the abolishing of the Senate because smaller states having any influence whatsoever “isn’t fair”.

An equivalent argument would be that maybe we should abolish the House. California having 53 votes over the power of the purse, when they are bankrupt and have heroine needles and literal shite in their streets is ridiculous.
(This post was last modified: 01-19-2020 02:37 PM by Kronke.)
01-19-2020 02:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stinkfist Offline
nuts zongo's in the house
*

Posts: 68,369
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 6859
I Root For: Mustard Buzzards
Location: who knows?
Post: #13
RE: SCOTUS to Decide if EC Voters Must Vote for Winner of State Popular Vote
(01-19-2020 01:19 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  
(01-19-2020 12:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(01-19-2020 12:35 PM)Claw Wrote:  Don't some states distribute their votes proportionately by number of votes received?

Two states (Nebraska and Maine) elect two electors by the results of the state overall tally. The winner in each Congressional District gets the results of the Congressional District.

Take Maine, with CD 1 and CD 2. Assume R wins CD1 by 2k votes, and D wins CD2 by 2100 votes.

R gets 1 elector, D gets 3 electors.

Those are the only 2 that dont do a 'winner take all' for a slate of electors.

But, nothing prohibits a proportional allotment within a state. Completely up to the state legislature.

Added this b/c I cant resist ---- just to get a response from Stinkfist: nothing prohibits a state from choosing their own electors based on the national total as a winner take-all, or on the national total as a proportional take, either. Sorry, I cant pass up needling stink...... 03-wink

lol....

again, I have no problem how states choose their electors or how they divide such within.....it's building the 'conglomeration'....or better stated, other states having influence on others that's my beef moving forward....

but you already knew that, ya? 03-wink 04-cheers

MOON MAN DRINKS

where ya at on this one, bubby.... 03-wink 04-cheers



01-20-2020 09:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,299
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #14
RE: SCOTUS to Decide if EC Voters Must Vote for Winner of State Popular Vote
(01-19-2020 02:17 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Of course this is a democrat issue.

They’re the ones that want to decide the presidency by a national popular vote, which incentivizes trash heaps like california and new york to continue being sloppy with their voter rolls. They incentivize illegal immigration while also advocating for their enfranchisement. They push for the abolishing of the Senate because smaller states having any influence whatsoever “isn’t fair”.

An equivalent argument would be that maybe we should abolish the House. California having 53 votes over the power of the purse, when they are bankrupt and have heroine needles and literal shite in their streets is ridiculous.

Well the main issue seems pretty obvious. States should be able to control what their electors do, if they choose to do so.

Still takes pretty bad vetting to elect someone who defects. Humorous that the Dems were trying to get Trump electors to defect and got 5 of their own to do so.
01-21-2020 11:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
EverRespect Offline
Free Kaplony
*

Posts: 31,322
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1156
I Root For: ODU
Location:
Post: #15
RE: SCOTUS to Decide if EC Voters Must Vote for Winner of State Popular Vote
The constitution is clear. How the states choose their electors is up to them
01-21-2020 11:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stinkfist Offline
nuts zongo's in the house
*

Posts: 68,369
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 6859
I Root For: Mustard Buzzards
Location: who knows?
Post: #16
RE: SCOTUS to Decide if EC Voters Must Vote for Winner of State Popular Vote
(01-21-2020 11:22 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  The constitution is clear. How the states choose their electors is up to them

that portion is simple....it's state's aligning that subjuverts...
01-21-2020 11:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.