After the oral arguments before the court?
Common sense prevails…
While constitution actually provides the elector’s the ability to ‘do their own thing’?
And there have been cases of that very thing…
But?
The high country ruling that freelancers can be replaced ends that….
This is a good thing in that it cements the electoral college to the popular vote…..
The vote by the court was unanimously….
The Washington state law at issue “reflects a tradition more than two centuries old,” she wrote. “In that practice, electors are not free agents; they are to vote for the candidate whom the state’s voters have chosen.”
In an opinion that referred to both the Broadway musical “Hamilton” and the HBO sitcom “Veep,” she added: “The state instructs its electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens. That direction accords with the Constitution—as well as with the trust of a nation that here, We the People rule.”
Lower courts had split on the issue, with one saying the Constitution forbids dictating how such officials cast their ballots.
It is one of the rare political cases at the court that seems not to favor one party over another, which might explain the unanimity. (Justice Clarence Thomas disagreed with the majority’s reasoning, but not the outcome).
Both red and blue states urged the justices to settle the matter in advance of the “white hot” glare of the 2020 election. They said they feared a handful of independent-minded members of the electoral college deciding the next president…..
Just more proof the Electoral College is an outdated relic that needs to be put out to pasture
To be clear, this decision is that the Electors must follow how their *state* voted and the national popular vote remains irrelevant.
In fact, if they wanted to vote for the national popular vote winner, and that person did not carry their state, they cannot now.
To be CLEAR?
The electoral vote HAS BEEN more closely CEMENTED to the state popular vote….
The elector can be replaced by the state if he/she does NOT follow the popular vote in their congressional district…
Presidential elections are ACTUALLY state elections…
There was no such thing as a national popular vote…
It only exists in polls….
They are chosen by Congressional district (and some statewide) but that only applies for Maine and Nebraska.
The Constitution clearly states that states can pick Electors anyway they want, and now there is a decision that they can enforce how they vote. No issue with that at all.
But it would be a mistake to suggest that this has *anything* at all to do with the debate over the Electoral College as a whole or the national popular vote.
I’m then making THAT mistake and so did the members of the high court…
Maybe your attorney jack needs to explain it to you.
What’s there to “explain.”
“There was no such thing as a national popular vote…”
And this has been the case in America since Day 1 of the Constitution and the election of George Washington.
True That….
From 13 to 50…
56 separate elections if you want to be precise.
To be clearer, James, states are allowed but not required to oblige winning Electors to vote for the candidate who carried their whole state (not their CD).
However, states could also allow or oblige electors to vote with smaller divisions, such as CD’s in Nebraska and Maine, or the Upper and Lower Peninsulas of Michigan (which was a system the SCOTUS approved in the late 19th century).
I haven’t read today’s decision, but presumably states could just as easily either allow or oblige Electors to choose the candidate with the highest national popular vote, or perhaps to divide their electoral votes in proportion to the national popular vote.
It’s fairly simple. In states that Clinton won, a few Electors did not vote for her. In one other example an Elector in a state Trump won did not vote for him.
This is saying the states can require, if they choose, for those votes to be assigned to the person who won the state. That will likely be the case in every state moving forward. Electors will have to look elsewhere for their 15 minutes of fame.
This unanimous decision strengthens the institution of the Electoral College, not weakens it.
States generally tend to go with who won the CD….
Some state as u point out have very few CD’s due to populations
No, that makes no sense whatsoever.
48 states (plus DC) go with the statewide winner. Who won more votes in a CD is irrelevant.
NE and ME also appoint electors based on the statewide winner but include one each from the CDs.
Republicans like CG are generally in favor of the Electoral College because it has increasingly been the only way they can reach the White House.
If Arizona, Georgia and Texas start voting Democratic that may no longer be the case anyway though
That has nothing to do with it and I am not even necessarily “in favor” of it. It was not long ago (2000 and 2004) when the “split” was believed to work either way.
I simply believe the system has served us well and that there would be a whole lot more to complain about the Presidential election process if it did not exist.
Why would anyone complain about the candidate getting the majority of the votes becoming President?
because of the way the campaigns would be conducted. Almost everything would be via the airwaves (in a future we assume would be beyond the virus and have campaigning as a possibility) and both parties would only focus on appealing even more to the base. It would be far easier for billionaires to get elected as opposed to those who had more appeal on a retail level and could inspire people personally.. a trait which might be useful in a President.
I agree one vote weighing the same as any other vote is appealing in a philosophical sense but there are unintended consequences that would arise.
On the contrary ,campaigns now are conducted almost exclusively toward the base.Witness how parties essentially abandon certain states .
Campaigns are already conducted mostly by the airwaves so that is an irrelevancy.
And your “unintended consequences?”
What do you call the poster child for “unintended consequences, “Donald J Trump.?
Yeah, thanks Electoral College.
And the base thing would be even more so. There would be virtually no in person campaigning. Whomever had the most cash or the largest SuperPAC could dominate the airwaves and win that way.
In theory, it would work out better for Republicans.
Piece in the media about Trump suggrogate cabinet members traveling to battleground states….
I’d guess they have bags of goodies to announce and hand out opposite Trump’s anti-minority rants…
True. Had Kerry won Ohio in 2004 the Electoral College would likely be gone by now. Both parties would have lost the White House while winning the popular vote due to it.
Exactly.
That’s what would have happened and we wouldn’t have to listen to these largely irrelevant verbal gymnastics trying to explain how this country is better served by this antiquated foolishness which was essentially established to placate southern slaveholders in the horse and buggy days of the late Eighteenth Century.
Name the 2/3 of states that would have ratified a change to the Constitution had that happened…
And that is also assuming 2/3 of Congress would have voted to change it, which I also do not think would have ever happened.
I think most of them would with both parties behind it and ,of course, this has nothing to do with your original argument.
Typical move of yours .
The “small” states would never have voted to get rid of the EC no matter what happened in 2000 or what might have happened in 2004.
All campaigns and all the players know the rules going in and and attempt to win that way. That is how competition is supposed to work. Those who win deserve to win and we the people, for better or worse, “get the government we deserve.”
Yes anybody who supports this dumb system “deserves” Donald Trump.
Him and his party.
Hopefully many will remember what party “gave “ us this kook.
If Trump won the popular vote and Hillary won the Electoral vote, you would be thanking your lucky stars for the EC.
The bottom line is to pick candidates who are actually strong enough or smart enough to win under the rules that have always existed and that everybody knows about. If they can do that, they may have a chance to be an effective President. This time was a fluke. Flukes happen. American endures.
Would it be more fair to award the World Series championship on who scores the most runs in a 7 game series?
Now, besides dismissiveness or name-calling per typical, can you address that substantively?
Nobody calked you a name so quit lying.
I doubt it would be gone because the states do not want it to be gone. You would need 2/3 of them.
I understand you don’t like it because twice it didn’t work out the way you wanted (even though you voted for Nader.) It didn’t really work out the way i wanted to last time either.
I looked up my first ever Poli Sci professor (and I see that he passed away in 2015), who told us that this whole EC thing was a ticking time bomb that would eventually produce a split and with it he thought mass civil unrest.
he was right about one part but not the other.
While there IS a on go inn effort to have states vote to get rid of the EC?
I believe that Congress would NOT go along with it…
Just as Iowa and NH ARE STILL the first primary states though they have little to do with the vast number of Democratic primary voters….
And I presume from your comment that you believe this system that has elected this psychopathic nutjob President has
“Served us well.”
Yes, he’s just one one of many Presidents we have had and will have.
As I have said though a “normal” Republican would have beaten Hillary by a much bigger margin and probably would have won the popular vote. I regret we did not get a chance to see that happen.
More irrelevancies.
You said it has “served us well”(I know you didn’t mean that but since you said it?..)
Now cut the BS…
The only reason you’re for the EC is because you fear,rightfully ,that the odds are great that no Republican will ever again be able to win a majority of the popular votes again
That is why you favor retaining it.
And that’s the only reason you do.
Not at all. I think if the system were changed to a strict popular vote, the Republican would in theory have a better chance of winning. They are likely to raise the most money from Wall Street, etc .
You folks never had a thought of changing the EC before 2000 and are especially butt-hurt about Hillary losing, because she was a bad candidate who had a bad strategy that you cannot explain away.
Yes we all believe that.
That’s why you’re opposed to changing it .
The Republicans would just win so much.
Like Trump said you Republicans would “get tired” of winning!
Well I guess you’re glad Trump won.
Your hatred of Hillary Clinton be so great ,although you have claimed here at various times you actually wanted her to win.
Yeah whatever.
I am not even necessarily opposed to changing it. I have never taken that position.
I have just said:
1. It ain’t gonna happen.. as james says
2. There would be some major consequences to such a change that the average voter would not like.
I’m not glad Trump won. You have seen what I have written for years now and ought to know better (or not “lie.”)
It has nothing to do with Hillary.
No you said it has “served us well”
It’s like you guys with the Senate filibuster.
When Democrats are in the minority, you believe it is crucial to defend it. When Democrats are in the majority, it has to go.
The ends are all that matters.
It has served us well. We have had great Presidents and bad Presidents and many in between.
You view America based solely on who sits in the Oval Office at any given moment apparently. I think that is too bad.
I would agree that the popular vote is gone from this President and any future one that stays with the right leading base of the party against trying to crawl to the middle right…
Trump is projected to lose the popular vote by twice the amount of Hillary right now and it could be more if he keeps trying ….
and *if* he does wind up losing the popular vote by that much, y’all won’t have to worry as much about the EC.
Hope Not….
What is a”normal Republican?”
Idle speculation.
In regards to the specific discussion,-Bush, Kasich, or Rubio.
Should we have a national one day primary to determine nominees too?
If so, it is very unlikely Biden would have come anywhere close with just one vote. The winner would have been Sanders (if not Bloomberg) and there never would have been the opportunity for Buyers Remorse to set in and for Democrats to act strategically and turn to Biden.
Again, this is all about being sore about election results in which your candidates blew races they frankly should have won, such as Al Gore losing his home state.
More idle speculation and totally irrelevant to any discussion as to the EC.
Nice diversion though.
And of course Biden easily won all the primaries after New Hampshire.
But why let facts stand in your way.
Flail this way,flail that!
There’s nothing more speculatively idle than suggesting the EC is going to be going away.
Nominate candidate who can win under the rules that have existed since Day 1.
I would hope someone would at least be game enough intellectually to respond to the baseball analogy.
The World Series has almost always been a Best of 7 (at the beginning it was Best of 9) contest.
Instead of that, would it be better to have there be one game only in which the winner takes it all?
or a cumulative run scoring competition (some soccer leagues actually proceed this way)?
Maybe there is a reason we would want a President to be able to demonstrate they can actually appeal successfully to different parts of the country and have a strategy to do so.
How about a compromise. We keep the Electoral College but increase the number of Representatives in the House as was done many times between 1789 and 1929
435 might already be too many
but its a fair idea to consider at least.
My guess is Republicans would never go for it because California would probably have 75 or more congressional districts–and thus 77 EVs while Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, etc still have 3.
I don’t understand how you that would work in theory. The states with growing populations already add seats, consistent with the 435 total. If we somehow added to the total number, then everything would go up proportionately.
How much do you fellow political junkies (and certified attorneys) forget ? 😉
But, while the U.S. celebrate as best she can Independence Day Observed, let an Englishman (and loyal British citizen) remind you of the requirements for a constitutional amendment, which have saved us from many terrible as well as many highly-desirable amendments (e.g. ERA & the child labor amendment vs the pro-life and flag-protection amendments). Not only do amendments need two-thirds of both houses (currently 67 Senators + 290 Representatives) they need the subsequent ratifications of 3/4, not just 2/3 of the states. In a 48-state Union (1912-1959), that meant 36 states (not 32); now it means 38 (not 34). On the other hand, no presidential signature is required.
¶ The alternative method of proposing (though not ratifying) amendments— generating screaming PANIC ALERTS !! from many groups seeking support and/or money — is for 2/3 (34) of of the states to call for a constitutional convention (a smaller hurdle than 3/4), although any amendments proposed by such a convention would still need the separate ratification of 3/4 (38) of the states.
¶ It’s not hard to think of a baker’s dozen of small states who might object to and thwart a fairer system.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlev
As Always DSD?
I Thank You for ur resourceful help to this site….
In the past we had had a person drop in to push the state based effort to have the country elect the President…
That effort has a LOT of states but lacks the Red states and i do NOT think it ever will have go along with the effort….
Especially with the popular vote totals growing against Republican Presidential candidates….
That person was a robot.
Probably….
CG minimizes the effects of the Electoral College because he’s a Republican.
But assuming (absurdly) that all other things were equal, the U.S. would have had Democratic Presidents for 24 of the last 28 years, not just 16.
All campaigns are conducted via the correct strategy to win which is the Electoral College. That makes everything else speculative.
That is what causes the effect. I voted for GWB. I did not vote for DJT. (The popular vote in one was far closer than the other) Irregardless to either of those actions, Gore and HRC both blew races they should have won. The fault lies with them, not the EC.