Posted on 08/22/2019 11:12:14 PM PDT by knighthawk
Federal court undercuts progressive efforts to nullify Electoral College, rules electors can vote freely
In a major blow to state-by-state progressive efforts to effectively replace the Electoral College with a nationwide popular vote, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that presidential electors in the Electoral College have the absolute right to vote for presidential candidates of their choice.
Democrats have increasingly sought to erase the Electoral College's influence by promoting state laws that would force electors to vote for the national popular vote winner -- and those laws were now in jeopardy as a result of the court's ruling, legal experts said.
The decision, however, also raised the prospect that electors could legally defect at the last minute, and decide the occupant of the White House on their own in dramatic fashion, weeks after Election Day
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Electors are definitely the weak link in the chain. Especially in this day and age of broken moral compasses and lawlessness
Imagine that. A representative republic is indeed a representative republic........
Democrats have increasingly sought to erase the Electoral College’s influence by promoting state laws that would force electors to vote for the national popular vote winner — and those laws were now in jeopardy as a result of the court’s ruling, legal experts said.
...
That’s the good news I’ve been waiting for.
Electors need to be vetted. Faith Spotted Eagle might be a nice lady, but the Dems did a lousy job as our side did with the votes for Mailman’s Son in Texas
“Winner-Take-All” Electoral Votes, as most States laws require, is also a MAJOR ATTACK on our Republic.
Simply take a look at a County Map of Presidential Votes.
‘Democracy’ is POISON to our Republic.
Electoral Votes should be ‘Proportional’ in every State, not winner take all.
Agree,
Each state party assembles a slate of electors, made up of state party members and approved by the party's candidate. These slates are partisan and predisposed to vote for their party's candidate. "Winner take all" elections simply means that the state-wide winner determines which slate, in entirety, goes to the Electoral College.
This ruling seems to be moot because it does nothing about HOW the electors are chosen. It only says that once chosen, they are free to vote how they please. Since they were chosen as partisan slates, how they vote isn't really in doubt.
Things like the NPV compact affect which partisan slate gets selected, not really how they will vote once selected, which should be a foregone conclusion.
-PJ
If I'm not mistaken, they have always had that right. People in my state who run for the job of an elector are life-long party members and active. Most would rather sever an arm than vote against their party.
You are not mistaken.
Proportional is better than winner-take-all. But the congressional district method is even better.
The winner of each district within a state is awarded one electoral vote. The overall winner within that state is awarded the remaining two electoral votes as a bonus.
No it's the other way. All states should be winner take all. The states are electing the President not the people. So it makes no sense for a state to cast a partial vote for both candidates. The state popular vote decides how the state cast its one single vote. The electoral votes only compensates for the population differences of each state. This makes the larger populations states one vote count a little more because it has more people but the state is still only casting one vote. States that have proportional electoral allocation are not allowing their state to fully participate in the election of the president.
POTUS is President of the states, not president of the people. If we were to remove the concept of the electoral college it would not change the fact that the states are electing a president of the republic of states and what would remain would be an election where each state would cast only one electoral vote for the president no matter how large the states population. In simpler terms instead of the president being elected by the 270 vote electoral majority he would be elected with 26 or more of the 50 votes cast with a tie being decided by the house. 50 states 50 votes, majority wins. Removing the electoral college will never result in adding all the votes of all the states together because the president is president of the states not president of the people.
Correct. This decision only confirms the way things have always been.
Electors disregard the will of their voters on pain of death.
There is consequence
10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
If they aren’t smart enough to explain how the EC works incorrectly, then they aren’t smart enough to listen to.
Your ‘Democratic’ Method is EXACTLY a large part of what is wrong with our current Republic.
Read the Constitution again. ALL of it.
POTUS is elected by the Electors of the States, not by the States.
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.