Posted on 08/23/2019 7:02:10 AM PDT by SleeperCatcher
As the Democrat Left seeks to circumvent the Electoral College with the National Popular Vote Compact, in which states agree to assign their presidential electors to whomever receives the most votes nationally, even if the other candidate won their state, a federal appeals court has thrown even more shade at voters.
As the Washington Free Beacon reported Wednesday, a federal appeals court in Colorado ruled 2-1 that the then-secretary of state was wrong to remove and replace an elector who wanted to cast his ballot for GOP alternative John Kasich rather than Hillary Clinton, who won in Colorado.
[...]
You may recall shortly after President Trump pulled off his surprise upset of the most criminally investigated presidential contender ever, there was a movement afoot to undermine his victory by convincing enough presidential electors to either change their ballots for Clinton or vote for someone else.
The vast majority of electors, however, remained faithful to their pledge and did the right thing by voters in their states in casting their ballots for the man who won the election fair and square.
But this federal court ruling essentially empowers ‘faithless electors’ in future elections, should it stand as the final constitutional opinion on the matter.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenationalsentinel.com ...
Pretty sure the elector laws differ from state to state. But, some uber intelligent judge someplace decides he’s smarter than the legislators. Then again, most of us are.
As I understand it, this throws a huge monkey wrench in those states trying to align electors with the national popular vote.
They can’t.
Actually that is just the opposite. It held up the rule that already existed, and scotched the rule that forced electors to vote for the popular vote winner.
If one reads the opinion, it is clear that the majority opinion is based on the intention of the Framers that Presidential electors were to have a large measure of discretion in how they voted. Original intent — it can be a bitch.
The ERA OF THE HIGHEST BIDDER has arrived.
Let them try it and see what happens when Trump pulls off a mega vote margin .
Electors are independent (temporary) officials who choose the President and Vice President.
Voting by individuals for President and Vice President is not mandated by the Constitution, and where voting for this purpose is allowed (in all 50 States, at present), the voters are choosing Electors, not a President.
All 50 States are free to change the method they use to choose Electors.
Because of this, there is not and there cannot be such a thing as a “national popular vote”.
Exactly. Part of electors job is to prevent insane candidates from becoming President.
A think a 2-1 vote means it was not the full court at that court of appeals. The next step will likely mean - think - that that appeals court, the full court, will have to weigh in as the latest decision is appealed further. Then AFTER that it will have to go the the SCOTUS.
It is up to the Party in each State to be sure the electors chosen are rock solid. This is not a big deal.
More importantly they through a monkey wrench in the Liberals attempt to bypass the EC with their Compact idea.
Citizens do not have the right to vote for electors, who in turn are not obligated to vote in the peoples’ interest.
Why is this shocking to anyone? The Electoral Collage was intended from the start to be this way.
State election laws hold president until the Collage is assembled, per the Constitution. At hat point, state law does not apply.
Simple.
In 2000 Bush needed all his electors and he didn’t lose any.
Yes my understanding has always been that electors cannot be bound to vote along party lines. I side with the Federal court on this one.
“As I understand it, this throws a huge monkey wrench in those states trying to align electors with the national popular vote.
They can’t.”
No poli sic background here, but I think you’re exactly correct.
1) As I understand it, Electoral College electors have always been able to vote for whoever they want (”Unfaithful Electors”), but they seldom do. So no change there.
2) As I understand it, a given state can make a rule that Electoral College electors have to cast their vote for the winner of the national popular vote, and this decision essentially says that state’s instruction is meaningless: if you vote for a Republican elector, and that elector wins in your state, he / she can vote for the Republican *no matter who won the national popular vote*, despite whatever goofy law the donkeys in that state have passed.
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 anyway.
-PJ
The point the Court made is that once chosen, each elector is a Federal officer no longer subject to state law.
Which is what the founders intended.
I agree.
Also, the 12th Amendment (12A) doesn’t say anything about presidential primaries. In fact, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention never heard of state primary elections, such elections seemingly a rogue political practice started in early 20th century.
United States presidential primary (note Progressive Era influence)
And speaking of rogue presidential election practices, how can the states agree to put names of political nominees of constitutionally undefined political parties on ballots without violating Constitution’s Article I, Section 10, Clause 3, since there seems to be no evidence of the states getting Congress’s consent to do so, corrections welcome?
"Article I, Section 10, Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State [emphasis added], or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
Also, it's interesting (disturbing?) that the judge cried for electors to vote for whichever political party nominee that they want to since 12A doesn't limit elector choices. In fact, 12A arguably recognizes only write-in candidates.
Again, corrections, insights welcome.
Remember in November 2020!
MAGA! Now KAG! (Keep America Great!)
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.