Court rules Electoral College members aren't bound by popular vote

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/21/electoral-college-members-not-bound-popular-vote-c/

Interesting news. What do you think, will it make a difference at all? Do you agree with the principal?

 

Thats been true the entire existence of the electoral college.

 

No stupider than the electoral college is. If this speeds up it’s demise then i am all for it.

 

That’s not always been the courts position

 

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.

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.

 

It will make a huge difference in effect the court said when we the citizens vote we are only voting to elect our states representatves on the electoral college.They are the ones who get to vote and elect the President and Vice President and they according to this ruling can vote any way they want they do not have to vote for the pick of their state, and they cannot be arbitrarily replaced as the two parties have done up till now.This decision is directly in conflict by one on the same topic decided by the Washington state Supreme Court which means this topic will probably wind up in the U.S.Supreme Court.

 

If you remember after Trump won in 2016 - Celebs made a big push to get the States that
Trump won to cast their electoral vote for Hillary.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bu...ral-college-not-vote-for-donald-trump-2016-12

Fortunately the people casting the vote had more ethics, than the looney left celebs.

 

They should go back to 1828 where only land owners can vote. How would that work our for the Democratic party of the hand out’s?

What about only people who pay taxes can vote? That wouldn’t help the Democratic party of handouts either.

That may be a stretch, but it makes more sense than letting murders, terrorists, and pedophiles behind bars for life to vote.

 

My bad folks, dupe thread. Original at the link.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...we-pick-our-president.560542/#post-1070899783

 

This might result in rogue electoral college voters.

 

They took a case to court when it is clear that was the case all along? I guess they needed more clarification.

 

"If voting made a difference, they wouldn't let us do it. "-anonymous..

 

The electors haven't been. I don't know how other states choose electors, here each candidate has a slate of electors that was submitted to the Secretary of State prior to the election. Whomever wins the popular vote, that slate of electors are the ones who cast the electoral votes. I was an elector for Ross Perot in 1996, had Perot carried Georgia, I would have cast my electoral vote for him.

There's a long history of what is known as faithless electors casting votes for candidates that didn't win the popular vote in their state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

I don't think this decision will make much difference. You had four electors in 2016 who didn't cast their vote for whomever won their state.

 

delete

 

Always was that way.

 

This have always been the case though in modern time, no electorate is going to vote differently than the population.

 

Absolutely agree. The electoral college’s primary function is to prevent a “Hitler”, “Stalin”, or “Mao” from being elected. It’s a defense against a tyrant.

As to rather it will make a difference, probably not—to overturn an election result would create unbelievable chaos, riots, and possible civil war. The justification would have to be so blatantly obvious, the majority would accept the action, and if it was that obvious, the tyrant wouldn’t have won anyway.

 

Which part of the Constitution is too difficult to understand on this issue?


Article II
Section 1.
The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

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: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section1

 

The electoral college should be disbanded all together, either allow citizens to direct vote or put it in the hands of congress.
The system we have now is absurd — undemocratic.

 

Another major blow to the Dems who want to undermine our Constitution and democratic process.

Great day for the Republic!

 

Please example to me how it's undemocratic?

 

That is how it has always been. The States elect the President and Vice-President. How those electors are chosen is up to the state legislatures and does not require the citizens vote on it. That being said every state does use a state popular vote and some bind the electors choose to the candidate/party. That binding is what is being challenged and as you note there are two conflicting rulings.
On to the SCOTUS. Does that "shall be choosen in a manner decided by the state legislature" include binding them. I would think so.

 

Even if there are worse and less principled times sometime in the future, a faithless elector, a traitor to the voters, has to try to stay alive among his/her peers in their community.

'nuther good reason not to budge on guns.

 

We're not a democracy. The system we have was a brilliant creation by the founding fathers and has served us well all these years.

 

Just to be clear the Court ruled a state can’t bind an elector to the US popular vote, but can be bound by the state’s popular vote.