Posted on 01/17/2020 12:57:48 PM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
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 reality is that the constitutional design is that the Electors should choose wisely. That is the reason that " no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”If that is the wrong approach, it can’t be fixed - no constitutional amendment can now be passed which doesn’t eliminate the Electors altogether.
It appears to be a non justiciable question. Hasn’t happened, no one can show that they’ve been harmed, no one has standing to bring the case.
I learned this from Obama.
That’s how I see it too.
I think the electors should vote according to who wins the electoral district they represent.
That would end democrat presidents for the foreseeable future.
“The people select representatives to choose their President.
Laws limiting the electors options/vote are not Constitutional”
It is Constitutional if the state legislatures mandate they vote the will of the people and by centuries of precedent and common sense. Otherwise, we have a few people choosing the president based on whim, bribery, or threats. You mean you think the writers of the Constitution would think that is a great idea?Electors are chosen by the voters under the name of the candidate preferred and have publicly declared their loyalty to that candidate. That is the origin of the term “faithless electors.”
The Constitution says, "each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..."
The legislature has carte blanche to appoint, as you say. But appointing somebody does include prescribing what they do after the appointment. That would be a different power, and it is not mentioned. The very concept of having an elector, a real person tasked with making a decision, implies that they have a delegated choice to make.
The Constitutional system is clearly designed with electors being appointed to make a decision, not just carry out instructions.
“There is no constitutional ‘right to vote’.”
I say this as gentle as I can, but you are insane.
You start of making a claim that something is constitutional, but what follows is not a legal argument. It's an argument about what system makes better sense to you. But the constitutional arrangement doesn't have to be the one that makes the most sense to you.
Be careful. A lot of states have enacted the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact that will award those states' votes to the winner of the national popular vote. That's how they define "will of the people."
That’s true - they can change their votes. So, you’re right, changing a vote is not the same as voting twice. Got it, I think. Thanks.
The only vote by the people mentioned in the original Constitution is for your member of the House of Representatives. All other offices are filled by other means.
This was modified by the passage of an amendment for the popular election of Senators, so now there are two offices where the Constitution prescribes a vote of the people. President is not one of them.
“The Constitutional system is clearly designed with electors being appointed to make a decision, not just carry out instructions.”
In other words, presidential elections have been just a charade since the very beginning and the original limitation of voters to white people who owned land was a rope-a-dope and all the campaigning by the candidates for president was just for fun and no candidate would ever stoop to buying off electors instead of trying to get votes. If that were true, the writers of the Constitution replaced one tyranny for another and the American Revolution was a hoax.
I think some of you people have read articles by someone who thought they themselves were being really really deep thinkers but did not know what the hell they were talking about.
Why isn’t it that you can’t find anywhere in history the idea electors were free to choose whoever the hell they wanted to was ever prevalent?
Last sentence: The court will hear the issue in the spring and decide the case by late June.
Goody, goody. Right smack in the middle of the super serious politicking that will take place during the conventions.
Should be interesting to watch.
Exactly what Pelosi, Schumer,Schiff and all the other Marxists want. Venezuela on steroids.
Can you imagine the mayhem that would result if the electors could vote as they choose. Candidates would only have to campaign to the electors. It would make the selection meaningless except to the very few. This is very, very dangerous.
As I understand it, the Legislatures don't even have to have an election by the people at all. THEY can choose the electors regardless of the vote. Florida was prepared to do this in 2000 when the Democrats were trying to overturn the election by counting non-existent votes.
Well, ‘traditionally’ (last two elections) I have helped select the electors for my party in my State... ‘Twas great fun.
The other parties picked their slates of candidates.
25,000 plus emails for one elector I know.
Followed by baskets full of mail in the weeks leading up to the vote.
Followed my massive crowds at the electoral site...
We counted rallied to ensure a friendly overall crowd at the site.
‘‘Twas great fun.
I still have one of the protestors signs they left behind as a souvenir of that great day !
And if wishes were fishes we would have some fried.
But the Republican Party selected some solid people to the electoral college... so it was all good.
“Be careful.”
You have a point, if you can get around the fact that people trust that when they vote for a particular presidential candidate, the elector embedded in the vote will abide by his pledge and carry out the will of the voters and not their own, or the will of a group of legislators who do not represent them (their district) at all.
That Compact is DOA at the Supreme Court.
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.