In a ruling that seems pretty damn stupid…
A Federal Appaeals Court has essential said electors send to vote on their the votes of their state ‘s popular vote can vote for whoever they want…
They are NOT bound by ANYTHING….
(Political parties pick ‘trusted’ electors…But sometimes they have strayed)
State’s have laws locking their electors to the popular vote…
And every court up to now has backed those laws…
Most Americans do NOT know that only for President?
The popular vote does NOT count….Only the electors ACTUALLY elect the America President…
Can one image a made scramble by Trump’s people to go after individual electors to get a second term make the whole idea of a general election irrelevant ?
In a ruling that kicks at the foundation of how America chooses presidents, a federal appeals court on Tuesday said members of the Electoral College, who cast the actual votes for president, may choose whomever they please regardless of a state’s popular vote.
The ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver said Colorado was out of bounds in 2016 when it canceled the vote of a so-called faithless elector named Michael Baca. Mr. Baca, a Democrat, wrote in the name of John Kasich, a Republican who was Ohio’s governor at the time, even though Hillary Clinton carried Colorado, earning its nine electoral votes. The secretary of state replaced Mr. Baca with another elector who then voted for Mrs. Clinton.
“The text of the Constitution makes clear that states do not have the constitutional authority to interfere with presidential electors who exercise their constitutional right to vote for the president and vice president candidates of their choice,” the court majority wrote in a split ruling by a three-judge panel.
[Sign up for our politics newsletter and join the conversation around the 2020 presidential race.]
Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard law professor who founded the group that brought the case, Equal Citizens, said it was the first time a federal appeals court had ruled on whether electors could be bound in how they vote. Many states, including Colorado, have laws requiring electors to pledge that they will support the winner of the popular vote. The Constitution is mute on the subject. The appeals court noted that a handful of faithless electors have broken pledges to vote with their state’s majority since the presidential election of 1796.
If you are an “orinalist”( believe that the Constitution should be read as it was originally intended upon its adoption in the late Eighteenth century) then this ruling is not far fetched at all.
There is a very good argument that the founders intended the electors to be independent operators.
True, back then popular election of electors didn’t happen; however, it is certainly arguable that this ruling is consistent with the original intent of the authors of the Constitution.
The solution ?Get rid of this antiquated mess.I have listened for years to the pro EC argument and consider all of them without merit.
Of course, this won’t happen.Without the EC the Republicans would have won but one presidential election in the past 30+ years!
The appeal ‘s court rule will be disregarded.
We BOTH know that…
The idea that the electors could ‘freelance’ in large numbers nullifying the party bosses is just too much…
The popular vote compact has just been mostly Blue States…
There is little to no chance things are gonna change in how America elects its President….
Please dont say this James.
I really don’t want this to happen and we all know your record with “predictions!”
Jack?
Please give me a break on the ‘faithless electors’ thing Ok?
AGAIN….
You KNOW what I said IS Correct….
NOBODY is gonna allow the EC to freelance….
That is…Even if the parties have to double down on who they pick to vote….
What do you mean by “double down?”
And you are aware that there are numerous examples of faithless electors.There were seven in 2016.
My post was just to show that this decision has some legal basis.
I know you are not interested(nor do you understand such things) ,I just posted it to note that these type arguments are not totally off the wall.
Indeed, this argument may find some support ,or at least interest ,among the five conservative Justices on the Supreme Court ,although in the end I would think all ,or most of them, will buy into the argument that the States have the right in determining how electors are chosen and ,thus, may compel electors so chosen ,based on their pledge to vote for a specific candidate, to ,in fact ,vote for that candidate or be replaced.
Still ,some originalists would likely still contend that electors are independent actors and there exists no constitutional prohibition to their “faithlessness.”
Not gonna happen from the Supremes who would be essentially changing the way America elects President’s…
Ruling against or a narrow bs ruling could be expected at the worst…
The how the law wa originally passed is bs also…
The 2nd amendment was for militia’s not a overall catch all….
It cuts both ways….
Yes….
Actually happens almost all the time as u point out…
But maybe a few….
To open the flood gates would be what mention…
It is NOT gonna be allowed to increase by any measure…