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

Skip to comments.

Faithless elector: A court ruling just changed how we pick our president
MSN News ^ | August 21, 2019 | Pete Williams, NBC News

Posted on 08/21/2019 8:25:28 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

A federal appeals court ruled late Tuesday that presidential electors who cast the actual ballots for president and vice president are free to vote as they wish and cannot be required to follow the results of the popular vote in their states.

The decision could give a single elector the power to decide the outcome of a presidential election — if the popular vote results in an apparent Electoral College tie.

"This issue could be a ticking time bomb in our divided politics. 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.

It hasn't been much of an issue in American political history because when an elector refuses to follow the results of a state's popular vote, the state simply throws the ballot away. But Tuesday's ruling says states cannot do that.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: electoralcollege; faithlesselectors; nationalpopularvote; npv
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last

1 posted on 08/21/2019 8:25:28 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Guaranteed to head up to the Supreme Court!


2 posted on 08/21/2019 8:27:34 PM PDT by princess leah (Princess Leah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

No, it is no longer time for these leftist judges to continue to make bad laws that empower the elite.

We are no longer ruled by representitive government.


3 posted on 08/21/2019 8:28:24 PM PDT by Chickensoup (Voter ID for 2020!! Leftists totalitarian fascists appear to be planning to eradicate conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Tis is not a change. The electors have always been free to vote their conscience. They are not bound by the vote of their state. Nevertheless electors have never faltered in following the mandate of the voters they represent.


4 posted on 08/21/2019 8:32:34 PM PDT by Louis Foxwell (The denial of the authority of God is the central plank of the Progressive movement.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

NO IT DIDN’T!

Americans elect their president per the prescribed steps in the US Constitution!

Full stop.


5 posted on 08/21/2019 8:33:56 PM PDT by pacificus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell

Exactly. Henry Clay once cast a contrary vote because he wanted to keep George Washington the only President to get 100% of the electors. I seem to remember it being for William Henry Harrison, but, could be wrong.


6 posted on 08/21/2019 8:35:16 PM PDT by Conan the Librarian (The Best in Life is to crush my enemies, see them driven before me, and the Dewey Decimal System)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: princess leah

There is nothing that binds an elector to vote for anyone that he/she does not want to vote for. The writers of the Constitution wanted a way to override the people if they made a stupid choice. There is also nothing in the Constitution that says the people select the president. The people select electors who promise to vote for a certain candidate.


7 posted on 08/21/2019 8:37:11 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Where does it say in the Constitution anyone is entitled to the property another has labored for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Arthur Wildfire! March; Berosus; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...

8 posted on 08/21/2019 8:37:54 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Imagine an imaginary menagerie manager imagining managing an imaginary menagerie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Why not just outlaw conservatives from being an EC delegate, because of racism, sexism, homophobia...?

Done, finished, 535 to zero for Dems!?!


9 posted on 08/21/2019 8:38:02 PM PDT by pacificus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

‘States have only the powers the Condtiution gives them’ Vs “The states have powers the Constitution doesn’t deny them.:


10 posted on 08/21/2019 8:42:26 PM PDT by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat/RINO Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

It would seem to nullify the recent trend of leftist states wanting to cast all of their EV’s to the candidate (Dem, of course) getting a national majority of the popular votes.


11 posted on 08/21/2019 8:43:42 PM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The leftist “compact” among the blue states would essentially compel electors to be faithless. It would provide that the electors would have to vote according to how the popular vote occurred in the other states versus how their state’s citizens voted.


12 posted on 08/21/2019 8:43:52 PM PDT by kaehurowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Actually, this is a good decision.

There are a several states that have Republican governors and Republican legislatures that could vote for a Democrat president in the General Election.

This ruling means that Electors from those states would be free to follow the wishes of the voters who elected their state leadership and vote for President Trump in 2020.


13 posted on 08/21/2019 8:50:06 PM PDT by Meatspace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The Constitution does not require a ‘popular’ vote for the office of President. Each state legislature is free to choose how electors are appointed. The fact that most states have chosen to appoint electors who represent the person who won the popular vote in their state is not mandated by the Constitution but now rather by custom.

There were ‘faithless’ electors in 2016. To many people’s surprise, most were electors from states that Felonia won who chose to vote for someone else. Their votes weren’t cast aside, but counted in the final tally.


14 posted on 08/21/2019 8:50:39 PM PDT by hanamizu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell

I seem to recall a “movement” in 2016 to get the electors to vote for anyone but Trump. Though this may have been in some of the primaries.


15 posted on 08/21/2019 8:51:06 PM PDT by Do_Tar (To my NSA handler: I have an alibi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup

I agree that there is no way that one of the 673 unelected federal district judges should be deciding this.

The case which led to this ruling was actually a Hillary Clinton elector in 2016 that refused to vote for her.

Reading the Constitution, I’m not actually certain that the founders intended the Electors to be compelled to vote a certain way.

Traditionally, positions as Electors have been awarded by state parties as largely ceremonial positions. In the future, there is likely to be much more thorough vetting of the slate of electors for their loyalty to the party’s chosen candidate.


16 posted on 08/21/2019 8:58:26 PM PDT by CaptainMorgantown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell
...electors have never faltered in following the mandate of the voters they represent.

Well, except for just that one time or two. And it was never enough to affect the outcome of an election.

But things change.

The Constitution does not specify exactly how Electors must be selected. They could in fact be appointed by the State Governors or Legislatures without any reference to a popular vote. Whether people would tolerate such practice is a political question, not a legal question.

Likewise, the Constitution does not impose any restrictions on the electors as to whom they may vote for. A number of States require their Electors to vote for the candidates to whom they are pledged, but this has no support from any Federal Statute or Constitutional clauses.

There won't be any help from the Courts in this matter.

The Net Popular Vote Compact between a number of Democrat-controlled States in effect nullifies the votes of the minor States in favor of those cast by California, Illinois, and New York. This does look to be specifically un-Constitutional. But it does not seem to make any difference.

I do not see a legitimate Government arising from any process that is decided by five Democrat city-states (LA, NY, Chicago, Boston, and Washington DC)

17 posted on 08/21/2019 9:11:13 PM PDT by flamberge (The wheels keep turning)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The Electoral College...

Useless when they do their job, dangerous if they don’t.

Will Rogers


18 posted on 08/21/2019 9:12:27 PM PDT by Ceebass (The only thing Orwell got wrong was the date)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ceebass

If it were determined by counties won by a candidate, Trump would have had a landslide victory over the HildabEast. As it was, his 306 vs her what 232 was a Decisive win! One the deems just cannot seem to get over..loser losers!


19 posted on 08/21/2019 9:17:01 PM PDT by princess leah (Princess Leah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

There is often several electors or so that vote for a different candidate, so this has always been allowed. Now the court has finally ruled on it. I assume the Supreme Court will agree.


20 posted on 08/21/2019 9:17:23 PM PDT by Dave W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-66 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