Unlike yours, this link explains the challenge:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-electoral-idUSKBN1ZG2EH
Thanks for the link.
Thanks! Sounds like nonsense:
“The plaintiffs challenged the sanctions, saying they were deprived of their rights under the Constitution’s Article II as well as its 12th Amendment, which spell out the Electoral College process.”
“Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear a dispute involving the complex U.S. presidential election system focusing on whether Electoral College electors are free to break their pledges to back the candidate who wins their state’s popular vote, an act that could upend an election.”
Blogs that run sensationalist headlines misrepresenting their content are extremely annoying. Especially because so many people apparently react to the wording of a headline without actually reading the article in question.
Thanks for that link.
Thanks for your link. The Colorado Secretary of State obviously did not have the benefit of my U.S. History and Government teacher, who made it abundantly clear that far from being unelected, the electors were precisely whom we were actually voting for.
Calling them unelected is to show that one does begin to grasp the system. Along with I would bet, at minimum, a plurality of the electorate (probably a majority, with those that partially grasp being the next largest group, with those who can explain it accurately being a minority that is likely so small I don’t want to even think about it because despair stinks).
“whether Electoral College electors are free to break their pledges to back the candidate who wins their state’s popular vote, an act that could upend an election.”
If they allow that, it will pretty much destroy the Electoral College.
Yep - “Faithless Elector” ploy - kind of like an organization voting to put its funds in a specific vehicle for investment and the money people deciding to put it in the Soros Aid Fund...because their opinion counts more than their customer’s