I think this statement doesn't hold when looking at the entirety of the Constitution.
The Constitution expressly gives the states the power to CHOOSE Electors, that's clear.
The 10th Amendment says that any power not expressly granted to the federal government belongs to the states and the people.
However, where it falls apart is with what it means to "vote." 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.
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, as the state is a collection of people and not an entity of its own.
When the Constitution refers to a state, it is referring to the legislature and governor of a state, who are people. The purpose of a legislature is to vote. There is no power that can force a person in a legislature to vote a certain way, and the legislature as a body has no power to force a citizen to vote a certain way.
State legislatures can constitutionally establish processes where Electors are chosen from competing partisan slates of party members predisposed to vote a certain way (the current winner-take-all process), but they cannot force an elector, once selected, to vote a certain way.
Those Electors retain their 10th amendment right to vote their conscience as their expression of consent of the governed.
-PJ
it’s a strong moral argument.
It seems to me there are times, (only in business maybe?) when people are required to vote certain ways, whatever their belief. That may apply to Electors. It may require state laws to enforce. Whether the punishment could include negation and removal I’m not so sure now.
I’ve had to face that it is ‘good’ practice to assume when the Constitution is specific - “appoint”- about a power it rules out other powers- “remove”.
Perhaps the Parties should require Electors to give them blackmailable evidence as a requirement for the office...
Wow, that argument went way around the bend to not address the issue. Electors are representatives of a particular nominee. Individual voters are voting for the Elector representing the nominee they want to vote for.
If the Elector the voters cast their vote for turns around and votes for a different person they are defrauding the individual voters.
Fraud should not be allowed by Courts of Law.
My perspective (and most importantly Hamilton's) aligns with yours: The Framers' Electoral College.
In the Framers' EC, before the political parties corrupted the system, notice that the votes of the EC are "sealed" and sent to the President of the Senate. The election results weren't known until the Vice President opened each envelope in the presence of Congress! Constitutionally, the states cannot alter the votes they submit to the Senate.
But of course, regular order under our Constitution is but a memory. Vote results are known on election day, and like you, I do not understand how the states can Constitutionally change the votes of their electors.
I might noodle this issue more, but since the existing system is such a putrid corruption of the Framers' EC, I probably won't.
As you request, I'll read your subsequent posts to see how this all ties in with voting and the 10A.
Freep on brother. I always appreciate your thoughts.