Posted on 05/13/2020 4:33:08 AM PDT by EBH
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court is set on Wednesday to consider a dispute involving whether “electors” in the complex Electoral College system that decides the winner of U.S. presidential elections are free to disregard laws directing them to back the candidate who prevails in their state’s popular vote.
If enough electors do so, it could upend an election.
The nine justices will hear two closely watched cases - one from Colorado and one from Washington state - less than six months before the Nov. 3 election in which presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden challenges Republican President Donald Trump.
The litigation involves the presidential election system set out in the U.S. Constitution in which the winner is determined not by amassing a majority in the national popular vote but by securing a majority of electoral votes allotted to the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.
The cases involve so-called faithless electors who did not vote for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Electoral College even though she won the popular vote in their states.
While that number of so-called faithless electors did not change the election’s outcome, it would have in five of the 58 previous U.S. presidential elections.
State officials have said faithless electors threaten the integrity of American democracy by subverting the will of the electorate and opening the door to corruption. The plaintiffs said the Constitution requires them to exercise independent judgment to prevent unfit candidates from taking office.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
The article points out that what happened in ‘16 would have changed the outcome in 5 past elections.
“The Constitution (not that it matters anymore) says the states decide how to award their EVs. A state could award its electors based on which league wins the World Series.“
Says you. In such an instance I’d file suit stating that it violates Article 4, section 1 guaranteeing a republican form of government. The winner of the World Series does not represent the people of any given state, let alone the voters of the state in which such an insane policy might be attempted.
We are “here” because very serious changes are occurring. Our Constitution tried to “save the people from themselves” as much as possible.
As America changes fundamentally within, these changes grow more serious. When our nation’s people loved liberty, none of this would be an issue. The idea that people could “vote out” liberty used to be preposterous. But in our age of “increasing equality” everyone gets a vote.
As the tide of public opinion changes and more and more want to vote us into a communist state, the harder it will be for the safeguards to protect our freedoms.
Should be a slam dunk.....NO they are not but the world in insane
EXCELLENT rebuttal. That’s precisely why this matters.
We don’t need, or want, a dictatorship of 538 people.
-—”The article points out that what happened in ‘16 would have changed the outcome in 5 past elections.”-—
Yes, but that wouldn’t have happened. Faithless electors only really change their vote when it WON’T effect the outcome. If the election is extremely close in the EC (like in 2000), everyone votes the way they’re “supposed to”, because nobody wants to be the guy that crashes the system.
Trump and Hillary had an unusual amount of hate from their enemies, and even then, the “faithless” number was small as Trump’s EC margin was healthy. Some EC voters felt free to be faithless because they knew it wouldn’t matter.
These laws are attempting to fix a problem that doesn’t exist, and never has any practical consequences.
Case has nothing to do with that. I read the excerpt
So it’s exactly what I said about the NPVI. As soon as a republican won the popular vote and the states (all democrat as I recall) who passed that law had to award their votes to the GOP candidate they would be clamoring to back out of the Pact. So now these same states that hate the EC want the USSC to rule The electors have to vote for the person who won your states popular vote.
This is the dimocrats biggest wet dream, the total destruction of the electoral college. Tear that down and they will never ever lose another presidential election as they have the illegal vote and the sit on their butts at home mob. That is their primary target. That, and adding more to the Supreme Court so that they never lose another argument there. I expect them to put at least four hard core leftists on the panel and they will win all arguments. Those are their primary goals!!!
7 faithless electors in ‘16
—7 faithless electors in ‘16-—
Sigh. Yes, I know. The point is there were an unusually high amount only because Trump’s lead in the EC was enough so that a handful felt free to do so. In a really close EC margin they wouldn’t. One of the most divisive elections ever and this wasn’t even close to being a problem.
Electors are LOYALISTS and PARTISANS to whatever candidate chose them. These two state laws are pointless circle-jerks.
States are not allowed to enter into a Compact unless Congress allows it, IIRC.
>> are free to disregard laws directing them to back the candidate who prevails in their state’s popular vote.
free to disregard laws
NOPE
that is why they are laws
this is about disenfranchising “flyover country” and rural areas.
The issue of our era is our Free Constitutional Republic.
The Left is in this to destroy it and they’re in it to win.
The Right seems clueless about even what the issue is.
Because of this one-sided battle, the Right has allowed the Left to bring America to the brink.
Will Patriots and the Right wake up in time? God in Heaven only knows.
who has the standing to present this case???
They’re making it so a very few can change the outcome.
Extorting/blackmailing just 25 Trump electors would do it.
They invented something they call standing to do away with upstarts like you.
ML/NJ
>>Would you apply that same logic to the “National Popular Vote Initiative?”
that invalidates the local vote entirely. you can award electors that way without even holding an election in your state.
It also opens the door to voters in other states demanding a Federal recount of votes in California and NY since it determines the electors in another state.
Jurymen are always free to vote anyway they please... We just need the necessary stones to do so.. The jury (the people) have a right to nullify bad laws... I'm I wrong.??
-—They’re making it so a very few can change the outcome.
Extorting/blackmailing just 25 Trump electors would do it.-—
That’s not realistic, and that could theoretically happen without these laws, and the laws don’t make it easier to do what you’re afraid of.
Californis has 54 Electoral Votes. Hillary chooses 54 people loyal to her; Trump chooses 54 loyal to him. If she wins the state, her Electors vote, and his stay home, and vice versa if he wins the state.
I’m desperately trying to figure out the point of laws which require people to do something they already desperately want to do anyway - vote for THEIR candidate.
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.