Skip to comments.Faithless elector: A court ruling just changed how we pick our president
Posted on 08/21/2019 8:25:28 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
A federal appeals court ruled late Tuesday that presidential electors who cast the actual ballots for president and vice president are free to vote as they wish and cannot be required to follow the results of the popular vote in their states.
The decision could give a single elector the power to decide the outcome of a presidential election if the popular vote results in an apparent Electoral College tie.
"This issue could be a ticking time bomb in our divided politics. It's not hard to imagine how a single faithless elector, voting differently than his or her state did, could swing a close presidential election," said Mark Murray, NBC News senior political editor.
It hasn't been much of an issue in American political history because when an elector refuses to follow the results of a state's popular vote, the state simply throws the ballot away. But Tuesday's ruling says states cannot do that.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Guaranteed to head up to the Supreme Court!
No, it is no longer time for these leftist judges to continue to make bad laws that empower the elite.
We are no longer ruled by representitive government.
Tis is not a change. The electors have always been free to vote their conscience. They are not bound by the vote of their state. Nevertheless electors have never faltered in following the mandate of the voters they represent.
NO IT DIDN’T!
Americans elect their president per the prescribed steps in the US Constitution!
Exactly. Henry Clay once cast a contrary vote because he wanted to keep George Washington the only President to get 100% of the electors. I seem to remember it being for William Henry Harrison, but, could be wrong.
There is nothing that binds an elector to vote for anyone that he/she does not want to vote for. The writers of the Constitution wanted a way to override the people if they made a stupid choice. There is also nothing in the Constitution that says the people select the president. The people select electors who promise to vote for a certain candidate.
Why not just outlaw conservatives from being an EC delegate, because of racism, sexism, homophobia...?
Done, finished, 535 to zero for Dems!?!
‘States have only the powers the Condtiution gives them’ Vs “The states have powers the Constitution doesn’t deny them.:
It would seem to nullify the recent trend of leftist states wanting to cast all of their EV’s to the candidate (Dem, of course) getting a national majority of the popular votes.
The leftist “compact” among the blue states would essentially compel electors to be faithless. It would provide that the electors would have to vote according to how the popular vote occurred in the other states versus how their state’s citizens voted.
Actually, this is a good decision.
There are a several states that have Republican governors and Republican legislatures that could vote for a Democrat president in the General Election.
This ruling means that Electors from those states would be free to follow the wishes of the voters who elected their state leadership and vote for President Trump in 2020.
The Constitution does not require a ‘popular’ vote for the office of President. Each state legislature is free to choose how electors are appointed. The fact that most states have chosen to appoint electors who represent the person who won the popular vote in their state is not mandated by the Constitution but now rather by custom.
There were ‘faithless’ electors in 2016. To many people’s surprise, most were electors from states that Felonia won who chose to vote for someone else. Their votes weren’t cast aside, but counted in the final tally.
I seem to recall a “movement” in 2016 to get the electors to vote for anyone but Trump. Though this may have been in some of the primaries.
I agree that there is no way that one of the 673 unelected federal district judges should be deciding this.
The case which led to this ruling was actually a Hillary Clinton elector in 2016 that refused to vote for her.
Reading the Constitution, I’m not actually certain that the founders intended the Electors to be compelled to vote a certain way.
Traditionally, positions as Electors have been awarded by state parties as largely ceremonial positions. In the future, there is likely to be much more thorough vetting of the slate of electors for their loyalty to the party’s chosen candidate.
Well, except for just that one time or two. And it was never enough to affect the outcome of an election.
But things change.
The Constitution does not specify exactly how Electors must be selected. They could in fact be appointed by the State Governors or Legislatures without any reference to a popular vote. Whether people would tolerate such practice is a political question, not a legal question.
Likewise, the Constitution does not impose any restrictions on the electors as to whom they may vote for. A number of States require their Electors to vote for the candidates to whom they are pledged, but this has no support from any Federal Statute or Constitutional clauses.
There won't be any help from the Courts in this matter.
The Net Popular Vote Compact between a number of Democrat-controlled States in effect nullifies the votes of the minor States in favor of those cast by California, Illinois, and New York. This does look to be specifically un-Constitutional. But it does not seem to make any difference.
I do not see a legitimate Government arising from any process that is decided by five Democrat city-states (LA, NY, Chicago, Boston, and Washington DC)
The Electoral College...
Useless when they do their job, dangerous if they don’t.
If it were determined by counties won by a candidate, Trump would have had a landslide victory over the HildabEast. As it was, his 306 vs her what 232 was a Decisive win! One the deems just cannot seem to get over..loser losers!
There is often several electors or so that vote for a different candidate, so this has always been allowed. Now the court has finally ruled on it. I assume the Supreme Court will agree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.