Posted on 08/21/2019 2:28:30 PM PDT by mplc51
DENVER — A U.S. appeals court in Denver said Electoral College members can vote for the presidential candidate of their choice and aren’t bound by the popular vote in their states. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the Colorado secretary of state violated the Constitution in 2016 when he removed an elector and nullified his vote when the elector refused to cast his ballot for Democrat Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote. It was not immediately clear what effect the ruling might have on the Electoral College system, which is established in the Constitution. Voters in each state choose members of the Electoral College, called electors, who are pledged to a presidential candidate. The electors then choose the president. Most states require electors to vote for the candidate who won the popular vote in that state, but the Denver appeals court said the states do not have that authority. The Constitution allows electors to cast their votes at their own discretion, the ruling said, “and the state does not possess countervailing authority to remove an elector and to cancel his vote in response to the exercise of that Constitutional right.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
You’re not off. The court upheld the Constitutional role of the electoral college.
In Arizona it’s the State Republican Chair.
Yeah - the electors are representatives who are oath sworn to vote the way their state voted but ultimately make up a quorum to decide the presidency as one final check against gaming the presidency or an out of control electorate. Say the electors knew the state’s election was corrupt or enough electors did determine that the candidate was unworthy.
It’s a power check and always has been which is why direct democracy is bad - because the ballot boxes can (and were) stuffed - even back in the constitutional congress.
I am just glad I live in Texas. I can not imagine my state legistrators or governor saying that they’d give the electoral votes to the popular vote candidates over their own state voters.
Yeah it can - in fact this is well within the purview of the court - to determine constitutional cases like this.
Wait, there’s more! Death to America democrats don’t just want you voting for their candidates - if you vote for yours, they want you dead
Generally speaking Electors are voted in as a panel. Each party nominates its choice for that panel. Those nominees are ALMOST always loyal to the party.
So the wishes of the majority (plurality) of the state’s citizens (IN ADDITION TO THE NON-CITIZEN VOTERS WHO MANAGED TO GAME THE SYSTEM) are reflected...as it was intended to be by the Originators
I’m a Vietnam vet & my knees are officially shot; can’t even pet the cat unless she hops up on a chair.
But I shot expert with the M-16A2 when I hit 62 in the USAR, and I currently own one of those nasty black rifles.
Plunk me in a fighting position & I’ll lay down covering fire all day. If they want war, they’ll get war.
Even hung onto my Kevlar helmet.
;^)
“DENVER — A U.S. appeals court in Denver said Electoral College members can vote for the presidential candidate of their choice and aren’t bound by the popular vote in their states.”
My take on this is an elector isn’t bound by the national popular vote either then, bad news for the national popular vote compact.
‘Electoral College members are there to do a job and not steal elections’
true, but what really needs to go is the winner take all system that we have today...but the states can’t be bothered...
Yeah, the Constitution doesn’t require the Elector to vote anyway but as his conscience directs.
However… does a State have the power/right to force them?
States have many powers over elections, and crimes such as, notably, fraud.
Good to get this straight now before it affects an election!
The US was established as a Federal Republic not a democracy and the electoral college was the means to ensure it was the states that elected the Executive. The intended way to control it was to control the state legislatures in very much the same way the Senate was selected.
Hang in their bro, I think we’ll both get the call (yet again)
Citizens do not have the right to vote for electors, who in turn are not obligated to vote in the peoples’ interest.
That would seem to me to say that a state can remove an elector who does it actin it the manner that the state legislature directed.
Based on the above discussion, the Sec/State of Colorado has no say in how the electors vote, and was wrong to interfere. The interference was illegal unless Colorado law allows it (not discussed).
‘because hasn’t this always been the case?’
yes, it has...
2020 appears to be a horse of a different color This time they are pulling out all stops and heaven help the hindmost.
The question that begs to be answered is, Are we as determined to see him[President Trump[ returned to the White House as they are as they are to keep him out. They fully intend to use every means[legal and illegal] they can [with all that implies] to deny him the Presidency in 2020.
Submarine sandwich in my ex-neck of the woods.
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.