Skip to comments.Supreme Court To Hear Case On 'Faithless' Electors- Punish Electoral College members who ignore the popular vote?
Posted on 01/17/2020 7:30:21 PM PST by PerConPat
The Supreme Court will decide whether Electoral College voters are required to support presidential candidate who wins state.
After lower courts split on the question, the U.S. Supreme Court decided today it will hear a case to decide whether presidential electors are bound to support the popular vote winner in their states or can opt for someone else.
States want the ability to punish or replace these so-called "faithless" electors...
(Excerpt) Read more at patch.com ...
Democrats, when you can’t win by the rules, you change the rules. Our country is falling apart and will soon fall into chaos
Lower c ours split on the issue.
I wonder if any of those courts have new Trump appointed judges. Now that Trump has been changing the make up of courts for 3 years the rulings on the issue might be different.
We’re still stuck with Judas Roberts. With two children, it’s understandable he doesn’t want to end up like Scalia. Or Epstein, or Vince Foster, or the Washington Madam, or...
Yes, this subject was a surprise to me. It shouldn’t have been.
but out of that chaos the order we all know and love will arise.
The thought of having to spend the rest of their life in a program similar to witness protection should be enough to discourage anyone from attempting this.
Most States are controlled by Republicans and that will help during a close election in the Electoral College.
LOL...Some of them actually refused to vote for Hillary in their state in an attempt to influence electors in Trump states to vote against him. The Dummycrats have gone round the bend.
Unless I’m misreading something this sounds like a good thing.
What I’m getting from this is that the state electors must vote for the candidate that wins in that state. Isn’t that how it’s supposed to work?
If I remember right, in 2016 more of Hillary’s electors defected than Trump’s. The Democrats shouldn’t be promoting this kind of desertion. The last time electors deserted a candidate en masse was for a Democratic candidate, Horace Greeley, in 1872.
Greeley had died, so the electors had to desert him to have their votes count.
Yes, it is a good thing. Simply because, IMO, it enforces the system the founders blessed us with- as proved in 2016. This case came about primarily due to Dummycrat electors trying to game the last presidential election.
Good, this needs to be resolved once and for all.
Just saw this on Fox News. One Elector in CO and 3 in WA voted for Trump instead of Clinton.
They were all replaced and fined by their States for not voting for Clinton.
The SCOTUS decision could impact Electors in all of the blue States that now have the “popular vote” rule.
I read on Wikipedia “Faithless elector” the WA 3 voted for Colin Powell in 2016. I believe they were trying to influence other electors in red states to do the same in an attempt to hurt Trump.
If the Supreme Court does rule that Electors must vote for the popular vote winner in their state, there goes the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact movement that tries to give their electoral votes to the overall national vote winner.
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.