Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Faithless elector': Supreme Court will hear case that could change how presidents are chosen
NBC News ^ | January 17, 2020 | by Pete Williams

Posted on 01/17/2020 12:57:48 PM PST by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: constitition; constitution; constructionism; constructionist; elections; electoralcollege; federalism; judiciary; politicaljudiciary; scotus; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last
To: PrairieLady2
' 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.

21 posted on 01/17/2020 1:45:32 PM PST by Theoria (I should never have surrendered. I should have fought until I was the last man alive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sarah Barracuda
...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.

22 posted on 01/17/2020 1:49:38 PM PST by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: j.havenfarm
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.

23 posted on 01/17/2020 1:51:38 PM PST by pierrem15 ("Massacrez-les, car le seigneur connait les siens")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

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


24 posted on 01/17/2020 1:55:35 PM PST by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now its your turn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pilgrim's Progress

aren’t you glad Roberts is a swing vote?


25 posted on 01/17/2020 1:56:48 PM PST by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now its your turn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PrairieLady2
"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.

26 posted on 01/17/2020 1:57:03 PM PST by jackibutterfly (A vote for ANY Democrat, whether it be in a local, st or fed election, is a vote against America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

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!!!


27 posted on 01/17/2020 1:57:14 PM PST by edie1960
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

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


28 posted on 01/17/2020 1:58:15 PM PST by Federal46 (federal 46)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

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?


29 posted on 01/17/2020 1:58:51 PM PST by T. P. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

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.


30 posted on 01/17/2020 2:18:13 PM PST by magamomma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: edie1960

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


31 posted on 01/17/2020 2:19:24 PM PST by PghBaldy (12/14 - 930am -rampage begins... 12/15 - 1030am - Obama's advance team scouts photo-op locations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Skywise

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


32 posted on 01/17/2020 2:19:30 PM PST by magamomma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Skywise

Yes you do elect elect electors.


33 posted on 01/17/2020 2:20:37 PM PST by magamomma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PrairieLady2
"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.

34 posted on 01/17/2020 2:21:41 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 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?”


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.


35 posted on 01/17/2020 2:22:47 PM PST by Ancesthntr ("The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." A. E. van Vogt, The Weapons Shops of Isher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: magamomma

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


36 posted on 01/17/2020 2:28:18 PM PST by Skywise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

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


37 posted on 01/17/2020 2:29:34 PM PST by DesertRhino (Dog is man's best friend, and moslems hate dogs. Add that up. ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: magamomma

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


38 posted on 01/17/2020 2:29:54 PM PST by Skywise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jackibutterfly

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.


39 posted on 01/17/2020 2:36:06 PM PST by Skywise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

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


40 posted on 01/17/2020 2:40:19 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson