Supreme Court will hear case that could change how presidents are chosen

I think the rules should stay in place. It would remove the significance of the EC should it change.

 

But can and will if this ruling goes thru

 

Could have before the ruling. This is specifically spelled out in the United States Constitution

 

They don't. Anymore the the right pisses on it.
Partisanship is a problem with this country.

 

No its not. They were suing because there were penalties imposed against them because they didn’t follow the state laws, and they are challenging that.

 

Show me where they can vote for whomever they want in the constitution

 

It doesn't work that way. Show me where they're required to vote a specific to the states popular vote.

 

FFS man, thats WHY the SCOTUS is hearing the case !

You dodged my question: Show me where it says they can vote for whomever they want in the constitution.

You made the claim...now back it

 

Realize that it's actually happened before right? 157 times. It's never flipped an election though.

There's nothing in the Constitution that says the 538 electoral voters are required to vote any specific way. There is nothing in the US Constitution that requires they do. The Supreme Court will let the states decide in my opinion.

 

Interesting, one would think the decision is obvious, the electors follow the vote, but given the Robert's Court, who knows, precedent doesn't seem to weigh much with them

If we have another election where the popular vote is overturned by the electoral vote serious consideration should be given to reconsidering the Electoral College

 

Yulee, the states did decide, now the electors are suing for the right to do what they want and not be bound by their state laws.

No, their isn't anything in the constitution, but their are state laws that govern their votes.. THAT is what they are fighting against.

I hope you are right and that they will uphold state laws and party rules.

 

Not all states have laws though. It's happened 157 times already.

 

You realize your vote is only as worth what your state legislature says it is worth? I can see the SCOTUS ruling that under the Article Two Section one powers the State Legislature decides how the electors will be pledged to vote in the EC voting. The legislature says the manner in which we choose our electors is to select ones pledged to the popular vote of the citizens, if they will not pledge they cannot be elected.

 

For it's electors in a winner take all. Depends on the state and their particular law. I just posted something about Virginia and how they settle ties which happen more on the local level with flips of coins and how in fact last election the seat that would determine which party would control the statehouse ended in a dead tie and they flipped a coin for it. For the electors it could default back to the state legislature and they would choose them. That almost happened Florida 2000 when Gore's fruitless challenges were getting them near the final certification date and the state legislature would void the election and choose them.

You'd have to check each state but the odds of it happening are huge.

 

To enhance the representation of electors each state should be divided into blocs conforming with the number of electors and each electors should follow the popular vote of the blocs they are representing,It's mentioned in the twelfth amendment otherwise the SCOTUS should ask first 3/4 conformance votes from state legislatures.

 

Your gal lost in 2016................get over it.

 

Not if they all did.

 

There are two states that do not have a "winner takes all" EC system but all the rest do.

The EC is an anachronism that is being abused by the small Red States to override the will of We the People. The entire system needs to be revised and this link explains how it could be done.

https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/1049-1070_Online.pdf

 

Hopefully they revive the 10th amendment in the process.

 

Right?

 

that is correct, not all do. But all state parties have rules and when they not followed the punishments are handed out, but have no legal binding. States are trying to enact laws, but can’t/won’t until this is settled

 

Has NOTHING to do with Hillary.

debate the issue at hand or go away

 

I already have many times over. If one party is allowed to lure poor masses from other countries into small areas with the biggest hand outs, it will herald the end of the Republic. It's why the Founding Fathers of this country included the EC in the Constitution.

 

I agree with you, being this is the first time in history a President has been impeached purely along party lines.

 

It won't happen. Such a decision would be directly contradictory to the constitution. It is clear that the founders wanted election by the states, not by popular vote. Have you forgotten the meaning of a union of independent states?