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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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......
(This post was last modified: 01-19-2020 12:45 PM by tanqtonic.)
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).
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......
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....
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
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.)
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......
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....
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.