I think the answer is pretty obvious: The Constitution gives the Legislature the power to determine how electors are chosen; even taking the voters’ preference into account is optional though all states require that at this time. I think of course that includes the power to require electors to vote according to the popular vote
Disagree......states by giving their editorial votes to the person who wins the national popular vote (even if the state majority vote for the other candidate - like clinton would get it even though Trump won each state)...the states can not undo the will of their peoples vote..this is a democrat scam to try to give the left the advantage in elections...I say screw them. Our founding fathers set it up correct.
Electors are just that exactly - electors.
They are not machines or robots.
The people select representatives to choose their President.
Laws limiting the electors options/vote are not Constitutional.
So be careful who you ‘elect’ as ‘electors’
Just like Senators were free to vote how they wished despite being appointed by the states before they became popularly elected.
The Constitution says, "each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..."
The legislature has carte blanche to appoint, as you say. But appointing somebody does include prescribing what they do after the appointment. That would be a different power, and it is not mentioned. The very concept of having an elector, a real person tasked with making a decision, implies that they have a delegated choice to make.
The Constitutional system is clearly designed with electors being appointed to make a decision, not just carry out instructions.
25,000 plus emails for one elector I know.
Followed by baskets full of mail in the weeks leading up to the vote.
Followed my massive crowds at the electoral site...
We counted rallied to ensure a friendly overall crowd at the site.
‘‘Twas great fun.
I still have one of the protestors signs they left behind as a souvenir of that great day !
No, the Federal government is an agent of the states NOT the people. The POTUS is it’s chief emissary/ambassador. The Constitution is a union by contract between the several states and the general government, like a Star Trek Federation of planets. The affairs of the planets are not the concerns of the federation,only if planetary affairs abridge, or become repugnant to, the foundation laws of the federations member agreement, the constitution. Like Star Trek the planets/states have their own constitutions and legislatures that form the governance by/for the people of each nation state. The affairs of the people are the direct concern of each state and their own elected representatives... and NOT the concern of the Federal government to extend into the affairs of individuals within the several states.
The US is not a population mass but a union of nation states that vote as individual representative sovereigns. State representation in the Senate is what makes us a republic of states.
We’re not a single demographic of voters. The US is not a population mass but a union of sovereign nation states with their own constitutions and legislature. They vote for POTUS as individual representative sovereigns, same way they do in congress. As a Representative Republic, the people do not directly elect the President. Each states representative vote called the “Electoral College” casts the votes. And of those EC representatives, a candidate wins a majority. The National popular vote is merely a statistical composite and election demographic for entertainment and pundits. But state popular vote is used, left to the design of each states legislature in how electors are chosen/appointed and cast their vote, in choosing/determining which party EC slate will be casting their pledged vote for POTUS. The EC representative vote prevents the combined population centers of a few states from overwhelming the combined population of the several majority states resulting in the population centers having veto power over the majority. EC is representative by design so 2-3 high population states can’t veto/cancel-out the rest & decide for all 50 states who becomes president.
FYI: The EC was NEVER intended to be beholden to a particular party within each state. Let alone having multiple EC delegate slates representing the interests of their respective parties and would cast their votes like if they were a bag of marbles or programmed robots based upon the outcome of a state popular vote that decided which parties bag of marbles will be delivered to DC senate president for counting! (12th Amendment). So it begs the question... WHY? Why do we have HUMAN delegates if they act simply as placeholders, marbles, that are used only for tabulation? ... Because the EC was NEVER intended to be marbles, but FREE-WILLED voting delegates!
The Constitution only allows for electing a President by electoral college and NOT by popular vote. The people can’t ever constitutionally directly elect a president or an elector delegate.
The Constitution gives no such allowance. The Constitution only empowers each state legislature to select/appoint each and every delegate if it so chooses.
US Constitution Article. II. Section. 1. p(2)
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”
Tying the states popular vote to the slate of electors is just a bunch of window dressing which is only in place to lead the people into thinking that they have a direct say in electing a president. But in actuality, any statute in any state that mandates such selection of the elector delegates would be repugnant to the Constitution and void if ever challenged by the people. The general election has become perverted and subverted by party greed and power. Multiple slate EC party delegates are meant to benefit only the interests of the party that tabulates a majority of VOTES CAST regardless of the actual/real will of the states population who did not vote! This flies in the face of true representation and state interests! The aggressive anti-American party will ALWAYS use special interest groups, paid protesting, MSM, community organization, and money... to spread lies, rumors, propaganda, fake polls and disinformation in campaigning for the purpose of disenfranchising voters, suppressing votes, to cause confusion and dismay among-st the opposition, and depressing/intimidating voters into staying home. And worst of all... disenfranchising votes by casting fraudulent votes, busing and cheating. That is why the EC delegates should be sovereign as originally intended... free-willed and without prejudice, not beholden-ed to anyone, any pledge, or any party. Or be a Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States.
The Electoral College... An equal footing for every state.
I think it is outrageous that anyone suggests that the Electoral College is an obstacle to the will of the people or exists without sound reason and argument.
The Electoral College avoids the corrupt influence of the popular vote and is required for the integrity and consistency of a representative government. And also guarantees an equal representation when casting it’s delegate votes for president.
The same representation it is guaranteed in the Senate with
each State having 2 Senators. The power of smaller less populated states wielding the same power as the larger more populous states. The Senate and Electoral vote gives that equal power and equal attention.
Each State chooses it’s delegates 1 for 1 according to it’s Congressional members. 1 for each Senator and 1 for each House member. The choice of each delegate is neither pledged or mandated by state statute tied to a popular vote. Any State which carries a law mandating the Electoral College delegate to pledge it’s vote on the side of the popular vote in that State is unconstitutional and should be thrown out if challenged. Delegates are free to decide on whom ever they choose, pledged or not.
The founding fathers created the college for the following reasons:
Federalist Papers: Hamilton #68, Constitution: Article II & Amendment XII
1) To avoid the Florida 2000 hanging chad circus recount of the popular vote that would decide the EC slate to be cast. But instead free-will single contingent/slate of EC delegates would cast their votes independent of the popular vote in November... casting their votes on their constitutional mandated day of the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December! No disputes, no hanging chads, no fraud! The President is elected clearly and decidedly. The votes are easily counted and cannot be challenged. Simple and decisive.
2) To create a buffer between the citizens and election of the president. It was to protect the nation from mob rule and ensure power for less-populous states. And to also ensure the attention and geographical reach is made from the candidates.
3) To shield/insulate the delegates from rumor or influence which does not have a foundation in fact which may change the outcome of a contest that is later proven to be false. With delegate pledging tied to a popular vote any BS rumor can be made on the 11th hour and change the whole outcome of an election. Would that be fair??
4) Carefully selected delegates are best equipped to assess and discriminate the qualifications, character, integrity and choose the person who will be entrusted to uphold and defend the Constitution and faithfully carry out the duties of President. Reason, not passions(emotions), of the people would stand in judgment.
5) The President is not and has never been directly accountable to the people only to congress and state legislators.
The multi party system we embrace in this country today was never intended to evolve when the Constitution was argued. Our founding fathers built a 2 party system into the Federal Constitution by means of the House & Senate. The Constitution defined the government and enumerated it’s powers. The Constitution is strict and concise and was born of a single ideology and without partisan favor. It defined government and insured against tyrannical change and arbitrary mischief by the obstacle of the amendment process. So a change to the Constitution was slow, wise and virtually absolute.
The guards of are liberty and freedom weren’t intended to debate over personal power, control and ideology. That was already settled/decided upon when the Constitution ratification passed! Government was created/authorized as our representatives to PROTECT our freedom and rights. They are our servants, EMPLOYEES!
The LEFT argues/infers Gov has authority to vote themselves largesse from the public treasury to affect influence on the electorate by implementing socialist programs, confiscatory taxation, welfare, multitude of regulatory controls offices/agencies/officers to harass the private sector/people with interference and the whims of special interests, NOT.
“He, King George, has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.” - Thomas Jefferson
Government is authorized/exists ONLY as a steward on our behalf to protect our liberty & natural rights... not impose- upon/interfere-with them. Gov job is to DEFEND OUR WAY OF LIFE!... not constrain it, provide for it, or redistribute it! Gov must yield to the chains of its supreme maker, the Constitution.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” -John Adams
When Congress oversteps its bounds (which is the only thing it does today), it does not secure liberties, it destroys them. For, every liberty that it foolishly tries to secure for one individual, it destroys countless others for all the rest — for both States and individuals — denying and destroying freedoms of choice and the FUNDAMENTAL Right of each of the individual smaller societies (i.e. the States and true sovereigns) composing this Union from governing themselves independently of each other without aggression or interference from their AGENT (Federal government) or their neighbors. In other words, the “Federal” Government is NOT the sovereign, the member States are the sovereign — not collectively, but individually!
The Federal government was not created to rule, judge or govern the States (or to be the source of such aggression on behalf of other member or foreign States). Rather the complete opposite was intended, as was simply stated on June 27, 1787 in convention,
“...the General (Federal) Government was meant merely to PRESERVE the State Governments: NOT to govern individuals: that its powers ought to be kept WITHIN NARROW LIMITS; that if too little power was given to it, more might be added; but that if too much, it could never be resumed: that INDIVIDUALS as such have LITTLE to do BUT with their OWN States;”
So, where is it in the Constitution (or suggested anywhere in Convention) that the other way around was intended — i.e. that the People have little to do with their own States instead of little to do with the Federal Government, and that the People’s business was with each other’s States and not with their own and that the business of the “Federal” government was the welfare of individuals?
How is interfering with the State governments (regulating all that which has to do with the lives, liberties, choices, morals, habits, customs, health, wages, etc. of individuals) preserving the State governments? — And, going so far as to sue States in order to PREVENT them from supporting and upholding the Constitution and all the “legitimate” laws made in pursuant of it (such as Arizona) that every State official is obligate by oath to support and uphold? How are such acts against the States “preserving” their governments, or the Constitution for that matter?
The Second Amendment was not inserted for gun collectors or for sportsmanship or for feeding one’s family. The Second Amendment was inserted so that the People and their individual sovereign societies (States) can defend themselves from tyranny from a corrupt and lawless governing head, to wit —
I disagree.
The power to choose the method of selecting Electors does not extend to include how those Electors, once selected, choose to vote.
Currently, each state party assembles a slate of Electors, made up of state party members vetted by the state campaign team and approved by the national campaign. These slates are partisan and predisposed to vote for their party's candidate. Those people, as your representatives, have the same freedom as Congressmen to make their own decisions once there.
Constitutionally, I wonder if the Framers expected the states to treat the election of Electors as something like a caucus where the states would select the most trustworthy non-government people, as opposed to how it is today with competing slates of partisans.
With the former, the process would likely be contemplative, where the top business leaders, academics, and property owners would be elected as Electors, and they would gather and choose the persons most appealing to the state based on their diverse perspectives.
With the latter, each party in the state assembles a slate of partisans who are active in the party at the local precinct level. The majority popular vote in the state determines which slate of partisans is chosen as Electors. They would gather and vote by rote according to the party line.
Both methods pass Constitutional muster, but I suspect that the Framers expected the former process, not the latter one.
Furthermore, an Elector's purpose is to vote, that is, vote for the President. We don't vote directly for the President, we vote for Electors, and the Electors vote for the President. The whole concept of consent of the governed means that the vote is sacrosanct. We the People, as the lowest denominator in the federal triangle, retain the most basic power of a representative republic, which is the personal vote.
It is the individual's unique franchise in a representative republic no matter under what circumstances or in what capacity that citizen's vote is being called for. It is an inalienable right of liberty that an individual's vote is his own property.
To say that a state can mandate how an individual is to vote is to undermine the whole meaning of the United States of America. I would argue that the 10th amendment prevents the federal government AND the states from forcing an individual person to vote a desired way. The right to vote is a right retained by the people. The Electors retain their 10th amendment right to vote their conscience as their expression of consent of the governed.
For me, it comes down to the principle that a person's vote is his own franchise, and no law can compel him to give up his vote to the state. The Constitution says that Electors meet to vote, not meet to pass along the state's mandate.
All that said, in a system where competing slates are being voted on, and where those slates are made up of actively engaged local state party members, and where those slates are vetted by the parties and approved by the national campaigns, the likelihood of a faithless elector voting against the candidate of their party is small. I don't see a great risk of a court ruling affirming the right of an Elector voting his will, when most times the Elector's will will align with the desires of the party that won the statewide election.
-PJ
WRONG!