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 ...
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
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.
Having electors becoming free agents will open them to incredible bribes and threats. Voting will mean nothing.
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.
If SCOTUS finds they are free to be unfaithful then we may as well quit having elections.
Which is the DeeperDemos fantasy.
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.
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.
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?
They made Trump’s electors life hell for a month intimidation
Next up would be ending that two term limit.
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.
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.
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’
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
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.
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.”
Based on this, if the electors in Texas decided to cast their ballots for Clinton, well, there wouldn’t be a country today.
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.
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.