Replies

Bypassing the will of the voters in your state is denying them the guaranteed Republican form of government whereby one elects someone else to represent their wishes. If you want to argue that the Constitution says that the states themselves elect the President and Vice President, then that argument loses standing after over 200 years of precedent showing that this has been given to the citizens to decide. The USSC would weigh in on the side of the citizens as they really would have no choice.

Except how they choose electors for FedGov has nothing to do with the State government being a Republican form. That is simply how the State itself is set up and functions, it has nothing to do with Federal elections.

But, if we read our Constitutions, we see that there is no requirement for the State Legislatures to even have a popular election, at all:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress

What part of that requires a popular election? Sure, historically, we have always voted for our electors (indirectly by voting for a particular candidate), but that doesn't mean a State can't do something different. Precedent is one of the stupidest things the judiciary ever came up with. The only time it should ever be used is if a clear reading of the relevant Constitutional text / applicable law doesn't give an easy answer, then precedent can give some rationale for how previous cases were decided. BUT, in no case is precedent binding, unless you have a legal issue with the exact same questions/situation as a previous one, within the same jurisdiction as the precedent being referenced.

" What part of that requires a popular election? Sure, historically, we have always voted for our electors (indirectly by voting for a particular candidate), but that doesn't mean a State can't do something different"

I'll ask you as I did to another poster on this subject. Does a state that has a popular election take place for the office of President have the ability to ignore the results of that election? Also, do you really think that the Supreme Court would find constitutional a process that denies the voters their vote after over 200 years of precedent?