Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Faithless elector': Supreme Court will hear case that could change how presidents are chosen
NBC News ^ | January 17, 2020 | by Pete Williams

Posted on 01/17/2020 12:57:48 PM PST by Oldeconomybuyer

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Friday to take up an issue that could change a key element of the system America uses to elect its president, with a decision likely in the spring just as the campaign heats up.

The answer to the question could be a decisive one: Are the electors who cast the actual Electoral College ballots for president and vice president required to follow the results of the popular vote in their states? Or are they free to vote as they wish?

A decision that they are free agents could give a single elector, or a small group of them, the power to decide the outcome of a presidential election if the popular vote results in an apparent Electoral College tie or is close.

"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.

(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: constitition; elections; electoralcollege; federalism; judiciary; politicaljudiciary; scotus; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last

1 posted on 01/17/2020 12:57:48 PM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

I think the answer is pretty obvious: The Constitution gives the Legislature the power to determine how electors are chosen; even taking the voters’ preference into account is optional though all states require that at this time. I think of course that includes the power to require electors to vote according to the popular vote


2 posted on 01/17/2020 1:01:34 PM PST by j.havenfarm ( Beginning my 20th year on FR! 2,500+ replies and still not shutting up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

A dangerous case. They made Trump’s electors life hell for a month intimidation, bribes the works and not a damn thing was done about it.


3 posted on 01/17/2020 1:03:25 PM PST by gibsonguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Having electors becoming free agents will open them to incredible bribes and threats. Voting will mean nothing.


4 posted on 01/17/2020 1:04:04 PM PST by hiho hiho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho

I hope they decide that electors are beholden to the people of that state. An elector has the same voting rights as everyone else does. He goes to tje voting booth and casts his personal preference. But as an elector he should cast the will of the people, not his own. Otherwise he could vote twice. It condlicts with voting laws which only allows one vote per person.


5 posted on 01/17/2020 1:08:54 PM PST by PrairieLady2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

If SCOTUS finds they are free to be unfaithful then we may as well quit having elections.


6 posted on 01/17/2020 1:10:04 PM PST by Buckeye McFrog (Patrick Henry would have been an anti-vaxxer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

Which is the DeeperDemos fantasy.


7 posted on 01/17/2020 1:13:23 PM PST by Shady (One More Time: CO2 is PLANT FOOD! Without it we die. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

The question as posed is wrong on both sides. They’re required to follow the instructions of their state legislature, who currently all follow popular vote (with minor variation), but there’s no requirement that states even have a vote, much less care about it. Legislatures and pick and instruct their EC voters on whatever standard they want.


8 posted on 01/17/2020 1:16:02 PM PST by discostu (I know that's a bummer baby, but it's got precious little to do with me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

The thing is - electors had free will but were also chosen by the winning political party to cast the vote so they were politically loyal to whom was being elected.

Some states have changed this to make it an “official government office” chosen by committee - in those cases electors shouldnt have free will.

Regardless this is ultimately a stupid facile argument and shows just how far power has been removed from the people and shifted into “government control” where tyrants and their brown shirts control policy.


9 posted on 01/17/2020 1:17:37 PM PST by Skywise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

The answer is really quite simple.

If the Supreme court has a majority of liberals, the electoral college delegates are free to vote as they wish.

If the Supreme court has a majority of Constitutionalist jurors, the electoral college are restricted by the voice of the people.

Are you glad that Hillary got beat yet?


10 posted on 01/17/2020 1:18:23 PM PST by Pilgrim's Progress (http://www.baptistbiblebelievers.com/BYTOPICS/tabid/335/Default.aspx D)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gibsonguy

They made Trump’s electors life hell for a month intimidation


Yet Felonia had more faithless electors than Trump did...


11 posted on 01/17/2020 1:20:23 PM PST by hanamizu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

Next up would be ending that two term limit.


12 posted on 01/17/2020 1:22:12 PM PST by SkyDancer ( ~ Just Consider Me ,A Random Fact Generator ~ Eat Sleep Fly Repeat ~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

Which would cause a quick acceleration toward a REAL Civil War.

The war 160 years ago was not, and if it had never been waged, a lot of this centralizing nonsense would not be occurring.


13 posted on 01/17/2020 1:22:26 PM PST by BrexitBen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: j.havenfarm

Disagree......states by giving their editorial votes to the person who wins the national popular vote (even if the state majority vote for the other candidate - like clinton would get it even though Trump won each state)...the states can not undo the will of their peoples vote..this is a democrat scam to try to give the left the advantage in elections...I say screw them. Our founding fathers set it up correct.


14 posted on 01/17/2020 1:22:37 PM PST by blueyon (`nt to be a nothing burger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: j.havenfarm

Electors are just that exactly - electors.

They are not machines or robots.

The people select representatives to choose their President.

Laws limiting the electors options/vote are not Constitutional.

So be careful who you ‘elect’ as ‘electors’


15 posted on 01/17/2020 1:23:43 PM PST by Pikachu_Dad ("the media are selling you a line of soap)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

The left wants the popular vote to be the decider because it will be California and New York that decides elections, they will NEVER lose..and that is why they want to flood the country with as many illegal aliens as possible, they will all vote Democrat as long as they get their freebies


16 posted on 01/17/2020 1:27:22 PM PST by Sarah Barracuda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

I have never seen an elector’s name on a ballot, and never saw a campaign ad with an elector in it instead of a presidential candidate.


17 posted on 01/17/2020 1:29:31 PM PST by Alberta's Child (In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

In a way a good sign. It means the Dems are afraid their vote fraud and illegals voting will not tip the balance against the victorious Trump.

They will have to dust off old actors like Michael Douglas to state in TV ads: “Hamilton and other founders had a genius plan—the electors can vote against the election result of the voters if they disagree it is the best choice for president.”


18 posted on 01/17/2020 1:30:26 PM PST by frank ballenger (End vote harvesting,non-citizen voting & leftist media news censorship or we are finished.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Based on this, if the electors in Texas decided to cast their ballots for Clinton, well, there wouldn’t be a country today.


19 posted on 01/17/2020 1:37:53 PM PST by EQAndyBuzz (Operation Chaos is in play. Repeat, Operation Chaos is in play)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

The thing is - you traditionally didn’t “elect” electors - they were chosen by the party boss of the political party that won the presidency.
It’s still done that way in most states but some have made them selected by a state appointed committee or picked by the governor of the state, etc; constitutionally the state gets to decide how.


20 posted on 01/17/2020 1:43:03 PM PST by Skywise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson