“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? ???
The article points out that what happened in ‘16 would have changed the outcome in 5 past elections.
The article points out that what happened in ‘16 would have changed the outcome in 5 past elections.
7 faithless electors in ‘16
Yes, that is what this is about.
Not that simple. What is the will of the “state?”
Could a governor make an executive order to overturn the votes of its citizens and vote a different way?
That’s what it’s about. There are laws in some states requiring electors to vote for their state’s popular vote winner. Those laws are what is in question. Very few people understand our Presidential election process. We do NOT vote for the POTUS in November, nor is there any Constitutional guarantee of a right to vote for the POTUS. We vote in November for electors. The real election happens in December when the electors vote for POTUS.
The original intent was for knowledgeable, wise men (yes not PC, but that was historically accurate) to be tasked with the job of selecting the POTUS, eliminating the pressures of politics and factionalism and ensuring selection of a quality candidate. That lasted pretty much two elections, when Washington was chosen and devolved into a purely political process with the 1796 election. The clear intent was for electors to have independence from any external factors in their decision.
Given that intent it’s hard to see how these laws pass muster. Even if they do, they may allow punishment of a faithless elector after the fact, but I can’t see any mechanism by which that faithless vote would be nullified. As you say, it is mostly a moot point since the electors in each state are entirely loyal party members with no real desire to vote against their party’s candidate.
Yes, what happens in the non-almost always cases. Really a state issue
I think the key issue is “almost always”. This election was one of those “almost” years. I think some states distribute their Electoral College votes by what percentage the Presidential candidates received, but other states use an all or none distribution. I prefer the first option and wish all the states used it.