Not surprised.
Short-sighted for any small state to sign on to this
What happens if they DON’T is the question? Would a faithless elector go to jail to overturn an election?
“can” require....
California will say “If the feelings and moods of the individual elector match the voters’ decision on candidate winning.”
NY will say “Electors may vote for anyone the Dem Governor rules to be appropriate and is the better person.”
so far this is local to the individual state.
can the state require them to IGNORE their local voters to comply with the national popular vote? I would think that violates the constitution.
(ie. if calafornia had 300 million voters then the other 49 states and territories would have to be mandated to vote with california)
Good. That’s been a concern for a while.
Last election, I tried to get information on the electors. Because there was a big choice. Outside of finding the party affiliation, there was very little information on the web.
Unless you’ve participated in party meetings and know these people. You’re pretty much voting blind for electors. I have no clue how trust worthy they are. Whether they’ve been in the party for 20 years or just since the riots.
I did some basics like ruled out women with hyphenated last names. I found a little info on a few that I knew would likely be trustworthy.
The sad thing is that some states leaders will decide to act on a faithless elector based on if the end result is too their liking.
The Constitution clearly states individual states can appoint electors however the individual state legislature chooses. Sadly, the Constitution stopped mattering many, many years ago.
Electors are appointed by State Legislatures, this power is sole and unreviewable.
Therefore. If the process a State Legislature chooses to appoint its electors is allowing idiots to vote, and if their process includes a specification that electors so chosen must follow the direction provided by the legislature, then this is a correct, constitutional decision.
“in a manner to be decided by the state legislatures” apparently means just that.
Interesting we have a unanimous decision by the Justices wherein the law and the Constitution were actually relied upon to make a ruling instead of making something up.
I actually thought those states were requiring their electors to vote for the popular vote-winner of the entire nation, not their own particular states.
Am I wrong?
AP, don’t trust their extreme left-wing analysis of this ruling.
If this situation were in place in 2016, would we have a President Hillary?
Pardon me, but what decision is this? Was this the faithless elector decision? If so, this sounds like nad reporting.
Not smart.
Not what the ruling said
This is simply about each single state and only the vote compact for each state alone meaning that if a national party candidate carries said state the electors vote the will of the state then certified by the state.
For the record, Elena Kagan wrote the majority opinion. Justices Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh, Sotomayor, Bader-Ginsburg, and Breyer concurred with her ruling. Justice Thomas wrote a separate concurring opinion that Justice Gorsuch joined. But the final vote was 9-0.