[Don Corleone]

That decision is basically a good one BUT the devil is in its details.. more judicial wordsmiths.

[The Pack Knight]

This is a pretty big deal—people have been wondering whether the constitution allows for faithless elector laws as long as I can remember. I think the Supreme Court is wrong here, but I’ll need to read the whole opinion. I am surprised it was unanimous.

[ClearCase_guy]

In other words, the Supreme Courts feels the we should follow the Constitution. At least today.

[Skywise]

No this is a BAD ruling.

If the electors MUST vote as the state laws decide then the state laws that say electors must vote for whom the popular vote went for is LEGAL and must be followed.

[Brooklyn Attitude]

“The 538 people who cast the actual votes for president in December as part of the Electoral College are not free agents and must vote as the laws of their states direct,...”

Except that many states now have laws that their electors go to the candidate who wins the Country’s popular vote.

[nathanbedford]

Not having read the opinion, I can comment from sublime ignorance.

It seems to me the purpose of the electoral College is to interpose the will of that college between the mob and the office of the President of the United States. To declare that that discretion may be removed from electors, presumably elected because of their reputation for discretion, is to pervert the purpose of the electoral college which is to provide a check on democracy.

Similarly, a holding that says that a state may require a pledge of an Elector, now apparently justification for enforcing control over the Elector, is contrary to the purpose of the Framers.

Any reference in the opinion justifying itself because it furthers a democratic vote, written by extreme leftist Elena Kagan, betrays a contrary understanding from framers.

[treetopsandroofs]

“Supreme Court rules ‘faithless electors’ can’t go rogue at Electoral College”

Or WHAT?

All this does is encourage RINO plants to try to disrupt the election.

[taxcontrol]

I see this as a win for the Constitutionalists but not a “defeat” for the anti-EC / popular vote folks. Their fall back position will be the compact to have their electors vote in accordance with popular vote. I belive the compact or agreement is unconstitutional as any such compact requires approval of Congress.

Ultimately, I see that as a bad thing as it disenfranchises the vast majority of voters. In my opinion, the electors should be decided on a per congressional district basis. Whoever wins a majority in the district gets that districts electoral vote. If no clear majority, a run off election held 30 days later, that does not accept or count write in ballots and only has the top to vote receiving candidates from the first election. This should establish a clear majority winner for that district.

The two state electoral votes SHOULD be awarded with 1 electoral vote going to the candidate that won the most districts in the state and the second electoral vote going to the candidate that won the most votes in the state. Ties for state votes should be decided by a unicameral vote of the Legislature or by the Govenor, according to state law.

[Nateman]

Only George Washington had 100% of the electors. James Monroe would have also got 100% in 1820 but one of the electors changed his one vote so that only Washington continued to hold that honor. To this day Washington is the only 100% vote.

[CodeToad]

The problem with popular votes is that States are not required to hold a vote or report to other States their results.

[gitmo]

Wow. I just read an article that said they ruled 180 degrees the opposite.

[Terry L Smith]

The Constitution is set in stone on this issue.

This will stick in the craw of those “li ing document” jehus, and I am quite satisfied with the SCOTUS.

[Bonemaker]

It was 9 - 0 no less. I’m surprised it wasn’t 8 - 1 with Bush’s boy Roberts dissenting.

[Political Junkie Too]

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #68 that Electoral College electors should not be bound by their states and were originally intended to be free to vote their conscience.

Federalist #68:

---

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.

---

Federalist #68 suggests that the Electoral College was meant to be filled temporarily by citizens of the United States who are free from other obligations to federal office holders. Furthermore, they were not to convene as a single body where factions might form; they were to remain local to their states and vote separately from the other states.

The risk of this case is that SCOTUS attempts to nationalize the operations of the Electoral College by ruling in such a way that forces the states into choosing electors by "will of the people" methods, where "will of the people" is really the will of the parties.

But what if a state chooses its electors by means other than a vote?

What if a state decides that its electors will be, say, the top taxpayers in the state? A state with five electors will pick its top five taxpayers, and those people will vote in the Electoral College?

In this case, there is no "will of the people" mandate for the electors, just the desires of the five most taxed people in the state.

How can the Supreme Court rule on the notion of a "faithless elector" when there is no guarantee that a state will choose a method of selecting electors based on a presumption of voting a certain way, just because they do it that way now?

-PJ

[Jim Noble]

Misleading headline.

The court ruled (correctly) that IF a State Legislature CHOOSES, pursuant to its SOLE authority to appoint Electors for President and Vice President, to allow idiots to vote AND ALSO CHOOSES to require Electors thus chosen to vote as specified by the idiots voting method, then they can be punished if they don’t,as long as the punishment is specified by the State Legislature as part of the appointment process.

[Flaming Conservative]

Praise God for that one!

[PeterPrinciple]

There was already a correction mechanism in place, don’t need another one..

[zaxtres]

People can argue all friggin day there is no “National Popular Vote” in the Presidential Election. Yet, unofficially and technically there is. By counting all the votes in every state for a certain candidate yields a total count for that candidate. This has become to be known as the Popular vote in the national election. States can mandate whatever method and process for their election but if in the end there are two Presidential candidates, Candid A and Candid B, then by the process of addition a person can get the tally from Florida and add it to Alaska, add it to Alabama, add it to the rest of the 50 states plus territories and DC to get a total national vote for a particular candidate. This unofficially became the National Popular vote for that candidate. So you can argue there is no “official” National Popular Vote but you would be “unofficially” wrong because all one has to do after the votes have been certified in all states would be to add all of them up to get what is now being called the National Popular vote. Or do you not know approximately how many people across the country voted in the last election? And how many people across the country voted in total for a particular Candidate. True the US Constitution does not have a clause for a National Popular vote, but we can find out this number just through the process of addition and voila! a National Popular vote. I am not arguing for a National Popular vote, but people need to use some common friggin sense as to where this is coming from because like it or not it is here and being taught as such. You want to change the way it is being taught, get civics back into the schools then become a teacher. And that is why this ruling has far reaching implications.

[Political Junkie Too]

Pose this question and then answer it:

Can a state pass a law that their House and Senate representatives may never vote for a tax increase?

If a Representative or Senator is not bound by such a law when they vote in the Article I Congress, then why should an Elector be bound by such a law when voting in the Article II Electoral College?

-PJ