Replies

Good discussions but I think to me the solution is clear.

First I start with the constitution and I am an originalist. As Yo-Yo pointed out in post 41, there are 2 elements to this. First is Article II Section 1 where it designates the number of electors for each state. This affirms the electoral college rather than the popular vote. To change that you need to change the constitution.

The 12th Amendment (1804) notes the formality of the electors reporting to Congress and I agree is silent on how they are appointed and who they must vote for. This appears murky however, the contextual basis for the this amendment was to remedy the problems with the 1800 election - and concerns clarification about voting for president and vice president. While it mentions electors (IMO as a tool - I think it was logistics of communication as it was known then) there are no special rights for them. Consider the timeframe where only persons of privilege could vote, to endow electors with privilege to overrule the votes of the people who voted for president seems unconstitutional based on subsequent amendments.

As an originalist, I am totally comfortable with a ruling that negates electors and substitutes electoral votes and do not consider it a rewrite of the constitution. It affirms the states powers in the count per Article II Section 1. It does not practically affect the 12th amendment.

What is the purpose of having electors rather than electoral votes? Electors are not how people vote when they vote for president.(What percent of people know the elector they are voting for 5 minutes after they vote - even if the name of the elector is noted on the ballot? Almost none.)

As I pointed out, the possibility of mischief in the electoral count is huge. No one has effectively countered my risk to the system by the examples that I gave which I will reiterate.

Consider a 270-268 outcome but 2 electors are either (or both) threatened or given large sums of money - say $25 million to change their vote. What is the rationale for allowing this possibility? It is insane. While the risk exists on both sides (which is equally wrong), I contend that the risk is greater for the Rs. Consider 2020. Assume Trump wins 270-268 and the D wins the popular vote (as voter fraud is rampant). What do you think will happen if Soros pays off 2 electors in some secret bank account and the votes are changed? What would the media do? You know the spin that would be created - impeached president, popular vote so the end result is fair. Would there be investigations in the new administration on these electors - not a chance? Would we violently recreate- I doubt it - perhaps some but it would be temporary and further tempered by MSM and worse by RINO squishes.

I ask the question - why allow the possibility for this to happen?

The 12th Amendment (1804) notes the formality of the electors reporting to Congress and I agree is silent on how they are appointed and who they must vote for.

First quibble, the Constitution says nothing about how anybody "must vote." It only says that the states have the power to choose the method of selecting Electors.

Additionally, the Constitution lays out six specific cases where citizens are given the power to vote in the federal government: 1) for Representatives to the House of Representatives, 2) as Representatives in the House of Representatives to vote on bills to be come law, 3) as Senators in the Senate to vote on bills to be come law, 4) amended in 1913 in the 17th amendment to vote for Senators, 5) as jurors in trials by jury to vote for conviction or acquittal in a court of law, and 6) as Electors in the Electoral College. In NO case does the Constitution say how a citizen is to vote, or that any other body has the power to decree how the citizen must vote, in any of these cases where the citizen has the power to vote.

This appears murky however, the contextual basis for the this amendment was to remedy the problems with the 1800 election... While it mentions electors (IMO as a tool - I think it was logistics of communication as it was known then) there are no special rights for them.

Second quibble, in the Constitution, nobody is a "tool." The 9th and 10th amendments make clear that rights not explicitly delegated to the federal government are retained by the states, or the people. It is the federal government that is the "tool" of the states and the people, not the other way around. The Electors are not a "tool" of the states or the federal government.

Third quibble, there are "special rights" for Electors to the Electoral College, laid out in the 12th amendment. 1) they meet in their respective states and not as a single body, 2) they transmit sealed ballots to the seat of the government of the United States, and 3) those sealed ballots are opened for the first time in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives for counting. While our votes are secret, too, they are counted locally and their reporting is controlled by the ruling state party; they are not transmitted to Congress and opened for the first time in a joint session of the House and Senate.

As an originalist, I am totally comfortable with a ruling that negates electors and substitutes electoral votes and do not consider it a rewrite of the constitution.

Fourth quibble, how do you reconcile that with the text of the 12th amendment that says that Electoral College votes are sealed and opened for the first time in a joint session of Congress? At what point does the state get to "negate electors and substitute electoral votes" when these votes are not known by the states until they are opened for the first time in a joint session of Congress? How is negating these votes NOT a rewrite of the 12th amendment?

It affirms the states powers in the count per Article II Section 1.

You misunderstand the state powers, as I called out at the top of this post.

What is the purpose of having electors rather than electoral votes? Electors are not how people vote when they vote for president.

The fifth quibble, as I pointed out elsewhere, the people don't vote for the President. The states choose the method for selecting Electors. It is true that the current method is for people to vote for slates of electors, but the Constitution doesn't say that it has to be this way, or that once a method is chosen that it cannot be changed.

What would you say if your state chose to Constitutionally change the method of choosing Electors from popular vote within the state to the legislature choosing by themselves? In that case, the people still vote indirectly; they vote for their state assembly and senate who in turn select electors who choose the President, or they vote directly for electors who choose the President. In either case the people do not vote for the President, regardless of what they think. However, if the state legislatures chose to take back the power to choose Electors, would you argue that it was unconstitutional to do so?

Now, if the state did choose to take back the power to choose Electors for themselves, can there even BE a "faithless Elector?" What would a "faithless Elector" look like if the legislatures selected the Electors themselves? There is no "popular vote of the people" in this case to break faith with, only the will of the state legislature that selected them.

I ask the question - why allow the possibility for this to happen?

Because the situation is transient. We only have the concept of a "faithless Elector" because of the method the states have chosen today. If the government is to last another 230 years, do you think nothing will change between now and then regarding how states select the method for choosing Electors?

-PJ