Posted on 01/17/2020 7:30:21 PM PST by PerConPat
The Supreme Court will decide whether Electoral College voters are required to support presidential candidate who wins state.
After lower courts split on the question, the U.S. Supreme Court decided today it will hear a case to decide whether presidential electors are bound to support the popular vote winner in their states or can opt for someone else.
States want the ability to punish or replace these so-called "faithless" electors...
(Excerpt) Read more at patch.com ...
Isn’t Traitor Roberts effectively a faithless elector on ObamaCare?
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.
-P
This is the way it’s supposed to work, but because the Constitution doesn’t specify it as required, some States don’t require it.
Wrong.
If the state decides to be part of that compact, it ties its electoral votes to the national popular vote. So it would force the electors to vote for the national vote winner.
“I don’t see a great risk of a court ruling affirming the right of an Elector voting his will.”
I strongly disagree. The probability of faithless electors is huge. Consider an election with a 270 - 268 outcome. Clearly the person with 270 votes was elected as the winner based on electoral votes. There are 2 risks that are more prevalent today. One is the money involved in campaigns and the other is information available to the public about electors that could put them in danger.
Consider the money aspect, with over $1 billion spent on campaigns (not to mention the possible corruption of deep state internal and foreign influence and the value of power), why not give 2 electors $25 million each to switch their votes. (Done in a way that could be hidden. Also the party in power would decline to investigate too strongly.) I believe some faithless electors got a $1,000 fine.
In addition to the money or separately, consider the fact of threats to electors and their families.
I contend that with power the risk is too great.
Faithless electors is my number one peeve of our system. I was thrilled to see that the Supreme Court is looking into this. I strongly support the electoral college. I am fine with the Nebraska and Maine rules as well as winner takes all. The point is that the electoral votes reflect the will of the people. (This assumes an honest count - which is my second peeve. We have to make significant improvements/reforms to get and insure an honest count.) It is absurd to have a small group of people with undeserved enhanced power to substitute their will and negate the vote.
I would hope the ruling from the supreme court mandates the electors votes as per the results of the actual and validated votes. (There is a formal process for validating votes in the states - needs much improvement.) This eliminates the risk as I outlined from faithless electors.
Note that I did not give a 269-269 example as only 1 vote change would affect the outcome. There are multiple reasons for this but the one I want to stress as that it does not necessarily turn a loser into a winner. (I realize it is possible to know which way a tie is going to be resolved depending upon the House election but it could be more complicated in that there could be some tainted house results that could come into play.)
Yes, I’m afraid it will. The 80-year cycle is nearly up. We are due for chaos, and you can see it ramping up.
Electors MANDATED to vote a certain way?
Your statement-- and the fact that your opinion is widely shared, even on FR-- indicates that our Republic is ending. Oh well, America will be burning by 2025 anyway. People will get a clue.
Both of you make good arguments.
Political Junkie, when it comes to the right to vote one’s conscience, the one major difference between an Elector and any other office holder (Representative, Senator) is that the office holders are elected by a vote of the people to whom they are supposedly accountable. A vote of conscience by the office holder is subject to affirmation of the voters at the next election.
The Elector is “(s)elected” by the party executive committee or similar group, which is not elected by all its party members across the state. It all starts at the precinct level and only with those who get out of their lounge chairs and show some interest in party politics. Only some of those at the precinct make it to the state executive committee. The only “real accountability” for the elector then is to the active party members who picked him, i.e. the party’s state level executive committee. Double cross them and your chances of being an elector or active executive committee member is over...but the damage is done. Therefore, the Elector’s right to a “vote his conscience” is not the same in the Constitutional sense as an elected official because of how he got his position and is not accountable to be elected by the whole party.
In addition, people who belong to the other party who cross over in their vote or are independents who support the party’s candidate ... what rights do these voters have to know that “their Elector” will vote as they did should their vote end up in the majority? An elector’s “vote of conscience” would nullify the exercise of their vote, and the elector is never to be held accountable for such an act. The voters have no redress. This may be where the answer to this whole thing is - the right of the individual voters to know their vote will be counted via the Elector should their candidate win supersedes the right of the Elector to vote his conscience.
The practical side of this - party people are party people and are expected and will drive over a cliff for the party. Having had over 10 years experience at the state level, I will admit there are a few really loose screws in the party, but the nuts are known and would not be put in such a position at all costs. The risk here is more with the demokraps because they really are a party of nuts, a very fractured party of separate tribes that their leaders are trying to keep together. I can see they are more at risk here should the court hold that the elector may vote his conscience. Despite such a ruling, the party will still do its best to choose its electors who will drive over the cliff for the party.
The answer to this whole thing might be the court seeing that the right of the individual voters to know their vote will be counted via the Elector should their candidate win supersedes the right of the Elector to vote his conscience.
I explain more fully in post #28.
Elector voting conscience could be valid where the candidate dies just before or after the election, or has some significant mental or physical incapacity, commits felonies, etc. Since this is unique only to the office of the President, it seems that the Elector would affirm the VP on the ticket. This would be consistent with acting according to the will of the voters.
If the SCOTUS rules that electors must vote for the winner of the popular vote OF THE ELECTOR'S STATE, then the electors would be legally bound to vote for the winner of their state regardless of any interstate compact.
A hidden part of the Marxist/Dem invasion/takeover of Virginia is to have all VA electors votes assigned to whoever wins the popular vote nationally.
So if 60% of VA voted Repub, and the vote was like 2016, the Dems would get all of VA’s electors votes.
Communism. That’s what it is.
I know. The ignorance is shocking. An elector is just like a representative. The elector is there to vote in the state's best interest, hopefully for your guy, but their are no guarantees, just as the representative is there to vote for your districts best interest which hopefully align with yours, but again, two legged critters have minds of their own.
What we need is for the state legislatures to reclaim the right to elect Senators, so that they represent the entire state's best interests instead of just the interests of whichever leftist city is the largest in that state.
I agree with your comment on the election of senators. 1913 was a pivotal year in our history.
Obama won the electoral vote this is ok
What if, for example, a state changes its method to something like Electors being nominated and voted on by the state's legislature? The majority party would likely get the Electors they want; what would a faithless Elector be in this case? If we defined "faithless Elector" to be someone who goes against the popular vote, would we now have a new kind of faithless Elector who goes against the majority party of the Legislature?
Or, what if a state were to changes its method of selecting Electors to an open ballot for electors? Now, in a state like California it might seem ridiculous to have 55 Elector races with three to five candidates running for each of them. But in a smaller state with 3 to 5 Electoral College votes, it could be possible to have actual Elector elections instead of single partisan slates.
In the case of actual Elector elections, it would be up to each candidate for Elector to campaign, perhaps to pledge to vote for a candidate, or to instead give a resume of qualifications for why (s)he is qualified to be an Elector. The voter would then choose however many the state has out of the list, and the top statewide vote-getters become Electors to the Electoral College.
What would a faithless Elector look like in this case? Would it be someone who pledged to vote for one candidate, but voted for another? What about the Elector who didn't pledge, but instead appealed to their qualifications as a judicious person? Can this person even be faithless at all?
So, the concept of a faithless Elector is not a uniform thing that can be adjudicated because it is situational. If a court were to rule the other way (that states can bind Electors), then does that also bind states from never using their Constitutional power to choose the method of selecting electors again? What about a future case where some states bind Electors and others do not? Is that a 14th amendment equal protection issue? Must all Electors be bound by state instructions or none of them?
One more thing: The 12th amendment says this:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot ...and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;The reasonable person has to assume that if the Electors were to "seal" the votes, this means it was meant to be kept secret until revealed at a joint session of Congress.The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;
Why seal the votes if the state was to have an oversight on the results and a chance to negate? How could the state punish faithless Electors after the votes were revealed to a joint session of Congress at least a month later?
Any ruling from the Supreme Court could not possibly be relevant because the Constitution says that nobody knows the results of the Electoral College votes until they are opened in front of the entire Congress. At that point, there is no opportunity for a state or a court to intervene.
-PJ
p.s. side note: consider the California recall election of Gray Davis in 2003. There were 135 candidates on the recall ballot, so having a ballot with many candidates for the Electoral College is not impossible.
You got that right. Intelligent individuals keep the Supreme Court as far away as possible from cornerstones of the Constitution such as the Second Amendment and Electoral College. If the Supreme Court gets a shot at either, there are those of us that won’t like the results.
Interesting points...Do you feel there is a need for the Electoral College, at all?
Absolutely. I've posted on that point many times over the decades.
First, it is the keystone of federalism. People have come to think of the President as the ruler of the people, but that is wrong. The governors of the several states are the rulers of the people, since the states are the sovereign entities that ratified the Constitution that formed the federalism we have today.
The President is the executive of the federation of states. Prior to the 17th amendment, Congress was established to be bicameral, with the House representing the people of the states and the Senate representing the state legislatures. That's why the people voted directly for their Representatives and the legislatures appointed their Senators as "ambassadors" to represent their respective states' interests to all the others. The President acted on behalf of all the states for foreign affairs, the national defense, and managing interstate interests.
To this end, the Electoral College is the forum where the states sent delegates to choose the President of the federation, leaving their respective state legislatures and governors to manage the day-to-day affairs of the people. That's why the Electoral College is made up of people who do not hold any other office of the United States or of the states.
Second, as has been pointed out by many over the years, the Electoral College is a firewall against voter fraud. "Excess" ballots cast in one state are contained to that state, as only the Electoral College votes and NOT the "popular vote" elects the President.
And third, the Electoral College ensures that ALL the states have a say in the selection of their federal executive, and not just the states with the most populous cities. This ensures that the President has multi-regional appeal and will not favor one city over another, or one state over another.
In short, with the post-17th amendment turning the Senate away from representing their states and towards representing their party bloc interests, the Electoral College is the only thing remaining that gives states any meaning at all. Without the Electoral College, states would devolve into nothing more than administrative districts, super-counties, if you will, and the President might as well be king.
-PJ
Are they going to address the states that say they will support the candidate that win the national popular vote instead of their own states results?
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.