Democrats, when you can’t win by the rules, you change the rules. Our country is falling apart and will soon fall into chaos
Lower c ours split on the issue.
I wonder if any of those courts have new Trump appointed judges. Now that Trump has been changing the make up of courts for 3 years the rulings on the issue might be different.
The thought of having to spend the rest of their life in a program similar to witness protection should be enough to discourage anyone from attempting this.
Most States are controlled by Republicans and that will help during a close election in the Electoral College.
Unless I’m misreading something this sounds like a good thing.
What I’m getting from this is that the state electors must vote for the candidate that wins in that state. Isn’t that how it’s supposed to work?
If I remember right, in 2016 more of Hillary’s electors defected than Trump’s. The Democrats shouldn’t be promoting this kind of desertion. The last time electors deserted a candidate en masse was for a Democratic candidate, Horace Greeley, in 1872.
Good, this needs to be resolved once and for all.
If the Supreme Court does rule that Electors must vote for the popular vote winner in their state, there goes the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact movement that tries to give their electoral votes to the overall national vote winner.
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
Obama won the electoral vote this is ok
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.
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?