Posted on 05/13/2020 4:33:08 AM PDT by EBH
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court is set on Wednesday to consider a dispute involving whether “electors” in the complex Electoral College system that decides the winner of U.S. presidential elections are free to disregard laws directing them to back the candidate who prevails in their state’s popular vote.
If enough electors do so, it could upend an election.
The nine justices will hear two closely watched cases - one from Colorado and one from Washington state - less than six months before the Nov. 3 election in which presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden challenges Republican President Donald Trump.
The litigation involves the presidential election system set out in the U.S. Constitution in which the winner is determined not by amassing a majority in the national popular vote but by securing a majority of electoral votes allotted to the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.
The cases involve so-called faithless electors who did not vote for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Electoral College even though she won the popular vote in their states.
While that number of so-called faithless electors did not change the election’s outcome, it would have in five of the 58 previous U.S. presidential elections.
State officials have said faithless electors threaten the integrity of American democracy by subverting the will of the electorate and opening the door to corruption. The plaintiffs said the Constitution requires them to exercise independent judgment to prevent unfit candidates from taking office.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Well, look at it this way.
If they get rid of it and turn us into The United States of California and New York, we won’t have to worry about any future second amendment Supreme Court cases.
The Supremes have a game changer on their hands.
There’s nothing complex about it. The SC shouldn’t even be hearing this case. The Constitution (not that it matters anymore) says the states decide how to award their EVs. A state could award its electors based on which league wins the World Series.
Whether they’re free to disregard laws?!
How is this even an issue?!
“The Supreme Court is set on Wednesday to consider a dispute involving whether “electors” in the complex Electoral College system that decides the winner of U.S. presidential elections are free to disregard laws directing them to back the candidate who prevails in their state’s popular vote.”
I’m confused. Don’t electors do that anyway? In 48 states already? Whoever wins the state popular vote has their slate of Electors sent to the EC, and they almost always vote for that person.
Once they get to the EC, they (I suppose) could turn faithless, but that rarely ever happens. is that what this is about? ???
Originally the Constitution had the same concept with Senators, too.
Personally, I’m a fan of frog jumping contests.
Kinda like. What RBG said yesterday about Trump and taxes, ....well every other candidate has. ..so.....
The evil in this woman is the only thing keeping her alive. ...at a great expense to the country.
Spot on
At this point, what difference does it make. (I love to use that phrase:)
If they decide that this stuff is OK, then doesn’t that open the door to jury nullification? If I’m on the jury, I can decide whatever I want. I don’t like the particular law — the guy may have broken it, but in my opinion it’s a stupid law, so I say he’s innocent. Or, I guess, the guy may be quite innocent, but I don’t like the way he looks, so I say he’s guilty.
Is that the direction they want to go? You just decide this stuff as you please and don’t need to follow standards and rules?
=:-)
Would you apply that same logic to the "National Popular Vote Initiative?"
Oh, there will be rules and standards.
But we won’t get a say in any of them.
Look at the WuFlu lockdowns as a preview of coming attractions..
this is one of the flaws in our Constitution. In a lot of cases, it is simply too vague.
In this example, it provides NO requirement for Electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote. What does that mean for elections? It could mean chaotic elections.
Let’s say all Electors are “free” to vote for who they want. What if the people vote overwhelmingly for one candidate nationwide, but many Electors don’t like this candidate and vote for someone else? We would then have a dictatorship of 538 people! It would effectively cut the President off from the people by allowing him to only pander to those 538 people to win!
Is that what the people would want? I doubt it. They want to believe their votes count in some way. How long would a “free” Electoral College stand before people want more decisive decisions?
I can’t imagine the Founders intended for the Electoral College to attain dictatorial power over the President.
The cases involve so-called faithless electors who did not vote for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Electoral College even though she won the popular vote in their states. … But in 2016, 10 of the 538 electors voted for someone else.
Note the deception from Reuters. It doesn't say that how many of the 10 electors voted for Mrs. Bill Clinton instead of Donald Trump who had won their state's popular vote. They want you think that all of the changed votes were from Clinton to Trump, but in fact the changes went both ways.
Mrs. Bill Clinton urged the electors to change their votes but in the end, hilariously more changed away from her than toward her.
No, I mean i don’t get the particulars of the dispute. Faithless electors have always been allowed to exist, but they will never change an outcome because they are loyalists to whatever candidate chose them, and they only turn faithless when changing their vote doesn’t matter.
So what are we doing here?
The article points out that what happened in ‘16 would have changed the outcome in 5 past elections.
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.