Posted on 08/21/2019 8:25:28 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
A federal appeals court ruled late Tuesday that presidential electors who cast the actual ballots for president and vice president are free to vote as they wish and cannot be required to follow the results of the popular vote in their states.
The decision could give a single elector the power to decide the outcome of a presidential election — if the popular vote results in an apparent Electoral College tie.
"This issue could be a ticking time bomb in our divided politics. It's not hard to imagine how a single faithless elector, voting differently than his or her state did, could swing a close presidential election," said Mark Murray, NBC News senior political editor.
It hasn't been much of an issue in American political history because when an elector refuses to follow the results of a state's popular vote, the state simply throws the ballot away. But Tuesday's ruling says states cannot do that.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
In 2016, Hawaii elector David Mulinix refused to vote for Clinton/Kaine and instead voted for Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
Texas elector Christopher Suprun refused to vote for Trump/Pence and instead voted for John Kasich and Carly Fiorina.
Texas elector Bill Greene refused to vote for Trump and instead voted for Ron Paul and Mike Pence.
Washington elector Levi Guerra refused to vote for Clinton/Kaine and instead voted for Colin Powell and Senator Maria Cantwell.
Washington elector Esther John refused to vote for Clinton/Kaine and instead voted for Colin Powell and Senator Susan Collins.
Washington elector Peter Bret Chiafalo refused to vote for Clinton/Kaine and instead voted for Colin Powell and Elizabeth Warren.
Washington elector Robert Satiacum, Jr. refused to vote for Clinton/Kaine and instead voted for Faith Spotted Eagle and Winona LaDuke.
Neither you I or billions of people have ever voted for a president.
The lying slugs at MSNBC are pretending this ruling changes something, it does not.
If an elector can ignore the wishes of the voters he represents, then I suppose a judge’s stupid rulings can be ignored as well.
I dont believe this for a second. From what I read this would defeat the whole concept of “Government of the people, for the people, and by the people”.
Either I read something wrong or this is some kind of scare tactic, or its just BS fake news.
“getting a national majority of the popular votes”
Please define “national majority”.
If California, NY, NJ, Maryland and Illinois do not allow a major party nominee on their ballots (which is very possible), how would you THEN define a “national popular vote”?
There is no national law governing ballot access or voter qualification (and any such law would be unconstitutional).
There is no provision in the Constitution which establishes popular voting for President, and there is no grant of authority to Congress to pass a law requiring it.
In the five States which are threatening to deny Donald Trump ballot access in 2020 (CA, NY, NJ, MD, IL) Donald Trump got twelve million votes in 2016.
You cannot allow a national popular vote for President without uniform rules, and there is no body with the Constitutional power to make any such rules.
Mississippi was the only state where the unpledged electors won outright. Nixon actually won only three of the former Confederate states-- Virginia, Tennessee and Florida.
Another interesting tidbit-- South Carolina's legislature still chose electors until 1860, after every other state had switched to selection of electors by the popular vote system. As recently as the 1824 election, four other states (including New York and Vermont) did likewise.
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.