Supreme Court says states can punish Electoral College voters

It has always been the intention that the electors are there representing the state's interests. It was never intended to be a personal vote and it has never been treated as one. The number of times that an electoral college member has gone rogue is very small. Only 16 since 1900. All SCOTUS did was say that state laws making illegal to vote other than as pledged, are constitutional laws.

https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-faithless-electors-2016-story.html

 

Perhaps you should learn something about the college before arguing about how it should be. This is 8th grade civics stuff.

 

I'm not sure if you are wrong. I disagree with your opinion though.

So why do you think that the sovereign states did the whole elector thing when they established their treaty?

 

Good advice. So why do you think the states devised the system of choosing the president they did?

 

You don't agree that the states have a compelling interest to protect the will of the people as expressed through their right to vote?

 

The vote gets cast, but it is regulated by the state that appoints the elector. Its not actually his vote that he is casting. because he only holds the proxy for the state election result as described in the statute under which he was selected and under which he performs his duty. . He does not get to replace that election result, with his own, absent state authorization under that statute.

 

I think the reasons are very well documented. I see no reason to develop my own logic, when the history is there for everyone to review.

 

I don't think that was ever the point...The point of this case was for states like mine who passed legislation requiring the electors to represent the will of the people. As in, if in 2016 Colorado voted for Hillary Clinton, and an elector from Colorado voted for Trump, then that elector could have been held legally liable for that. The electoral college is nothing more than a shell game at this point. It has no power but to do the will of the people and this only reinforces that, so what was your point again?

 

I can give you a list of 50 and you tell me which ones would oppose it and why? I simply cannot think of any reason now that electors are not allowed to vote the way their conscience dictates. And that there is no issue about the black population in the south needing to be disenfranchised from being represented in any particular state (which was another of the "problems" it was originally set to solve.).

 

9-0

oops.

 

I'm not sure that the whole idea was for the electors to be chosen by a popular vote. If that was the case, then why the whole system in the first place? Why do you think that the states set up the presidential election the way it is? Why not just a plebiscite?

 

Hm, just curious for curiosity's sake here, since I don't think this will even come up, but wouldn't that mean that they can still cast their vote however they wanted . . . just that they will be punished if they go against the state's guidelines?

 

I can't think of any that would ratify such an amendment, much less 38 of the sovereign states.

 

I was thinking more about making it better. Not worse. Eliminating voter fraud... absolutely: no more gerrymandering, no more voter suppression. And definitely outlaw all forms of campaign contributions, which is one of the worst sources of election fraud. Make it easier for We The People to exercise our democratic right. Institute online voting, for example.

 

Good. So what were they?

 

~ So was I .

 

Why?

 

They would be giving up political influence. Just as I can't see 38 states supporting an amendment eliminating the senate.

 

That's up to the states to decide - and all of them have decided to do it that way.
So, again:
You don't agree that the states have a compelling interest to protect the will of the people as expressed through their right to vote?

 

Yeah.... but your idea of "better" is Donald Trump.

I rest my case...

 

No, not really. That's not how the president is chosen.

 

What political influence? Elections are decided by 12 so-called "swing states" (it might change this time, but it will go back to "normal" later). And, in the end, only 4 or 5 actually decide the elections. In all others your vote for President is irrelevant. Right there you have your 38 states (the non swing-states). But I believe this would be a clean sweep. Or very close to it. I'm sure most citizens of states like Florida, Michigan, Ohio... would much rather see real democracy than try to argue that they want to have more influence on who is President than other fellow Americans.

 

Interesting. So what's the list of states that will ratify?

 

As computer security gets more and more sophisticated, so do hackers. With that undeniably being the case, how would you ever see online voting being a realistic option? In other words, how could a computer programmer ever declare that their system is infallible, because infallibility is literally what would be required for online voting to be feasible.

 

Correct! The states have the right to fine electors who do not vote with their states popular vote.

Electoral College voters can be forced to back state popular vote winners, Supreme Court says
~snip~

Virtually every state — besides Maine and Nebraska — allocates all of its Electoral College representation to electors who have committed to vote for the winner of the state popular vote. And most states, including Washington and Colorado, have laws that require electors to vote for their pledged candidate. The electors who brought the two cases argued that the enforcement of those laws was unconstitutional. ​