'Faithless elector': Supreme Court will hear case that could change how presidents are chosen

NBC News ^ | January 17, 2020 | by Pete Williams

[Oldeconomybuyer]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Friday to take up an issue that could change a key element of the system America uses to elect its president, with a decision likely in the spring just as the campaign heats up.

The answer to the question could be a decisive one: Are the electors who cast the actual Electoral College ballots for president and vice president required to follow the results of the popular vote in their states? Or are they free to vote as they wish?

A decision that they are free agents could give a single elector, or a small group of them, the power to decide the outcome of a presidential election if the popular vote results in an apparent Electoral College tie or is close.

"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.

[Theoria]

' An elector has the same voting rights as everyone else does. '

That isn't the case at all. Electors are the only ones that determine the election. There is no constitutional 'right to vote'. The individual citizen has no say, merely each elector determined by each state.

[GingisK]

...as they get their freebies...

That happens as long as the economy works. The economy will collapse once the communists take hold of this Nation.

[pierrem15]

I think once they are chosen, they become Constitutional officials no longer subject to state jurisdiction regarding their official duties, i.e., casting a vote for President & Vice President.

Just like Senators were free to vote how they wished despite being appointed by the states before they became popularly elected.

[PIF]

If SCOTUS finds they are free to be unfaithful then we may as well quit having elections.

---

Since will will be under some communist tyrant’s rule, elections will be for show only

[PIF]

aren’t you glad Roberts is a swing vote?

[jackibutterfly]

"He goes to tje voting booth and casts his personal preference. But as an elector he should cast the will of the people, not his own. Otherwise he could vote twice."

Otherwise, he WOULD BE VOTING twice.

[edie1960]

As 2016 proved unequivocally, putatively “legally” bound Electors represent the only protection we the people have against tyranny!!!

I believe that our Constitution should be interrupted as written—not as some text to be revised to accommodate those who seek to gain power by any means necessary!!!

Praying that Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh stand guard to ensure we have the same bulwark in 2020!!!

[Federal46]

How cool so we might have a representative Republic without the representation!

[T. P. Pole]

Isn’t this really about that compact of states to have their electors vote for the popular vote winner regardless of how their state votes?

[magamomma]

Yes you do, you vote in your state for your electors, in 2016 the r’s sent a list of your electors and who to vote for, I think there were 3 or 4, I am in suburban Philly.

[PghBaldy]

Thomas & Alito are the only two I have complete faith in.

[magamomma]

You do vote for your electors, you go to the polls and vote.

[magamomma]

Yes you do elect elect electors.

[mlo]

"Otherwise he could vote twice. It condlicts with voting laws which only allows one vote per person."

No, because he holds a position which involves casting a vote. Same as any other elected official like a Senator or Councilman. Casting this vote is what the elector is for.

[Ancesthntr]

“Isn’t this really about that compact of states to have their electors vote for the popular vote winner regardless of how their state votes?”

---

That’s a whole different issue - whether the states have the power to enter into an agreement with other states that could have the effect of disenfranchising their own citizens. Isn’t there a clause in the Constitution that guarantees us a “republican” [small “R”] form of government? Why, yes - YES, there is: Article IV, Section 4:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government....”

I would make the argument that a compact of the States to have the EVs of each participating state be given to the winner of the popular vote nationwide is violative of Article IV, Section 4.

[Skywise]

Really? Name the elector you voted for. Any election.

[DesertRhino]

And even if they get it changed, it’d blow up in their face. God only knows how many people in California, New Yorker, Illinois, Oregon, etc don’t even bother to vote in Presidential elections because in one party states it’s basically pointless. How many people in Texas or Oklahoma don’t worry if they are busy on election day because they know their state is safe.

If the communists change the rules to a national vote total, they’ll still lose. HARD

[Skywise]

That’s your state - most states, including mine, you don’t vote for your electors. Just for the President.

[Skywise]

The point is that the electors act as party representatives.

In the event of any shenanigans or voting irregularities the reps - who were honor bound but not duty bound could change their vote, being the ultimate representatives in a republic.

This was intentionally chosen as math was available back then and a total vote count for president could be achieved even back then. This was one last check and balance on power.

That’s why electors are traditionally party appointees and the process is intended as a formality.

[Brilliant]

Would be good to hold that they can’t be faithless.