“The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide ahead of the 2020 election whether presidential electors are bound to support the popular vote winner in their states or can opt for someone else.

Advocates for the court's intervention say the issue needs urgent resolution in an era of intense political polarization and the prospect of a razor-thin margin in a presidential election, although so-called faithless electors have been a footnote so far in American history.

The justices will hear arguments in April and should issue a decision by late June.

About 30 states require presidential electors to vote for the popular vote winner, and electors almost always do so anyway…”

https://mol.im/a/7900645

Several blue states are trying to subvert the electoral college system by requiring their electors to vote for the national popular vote winner.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...e_Interstate_Compact

It seems to me that the decision in this case might bear on that lib ploy.

@Balzé Halzé introduced this topic in the Trump thread yesterday.

Democrats will try anything to win.

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
Several blue states are trying to subvert the electoral college system by requiring their electors to vote for the national popular vote winner.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...e_Interstate_Compact

It seems to me that the decision in this case might bear on that lib ploy.

I think this is great! Imagine when Trump wins the popular vote in 2020 and CA is required to award all its EC votes to Trump. Oh, that would be a sweet victory.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Lee:
I think this is great! Imagine when Trump wins the popular vote in 2020 and CA is required to award all its EC votes to Trump. Oh, that would be a sweet victory.

As one of the few right thinking folks left in a state overrun with Leftists, that irony would be sweet, however I don’t believe that “foiling the electoral college” would be a good thing in the long run, despite how sweet it might seem in the moment.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I believe the Electoral College was initially set up because communications were inadequate for everyone to even know much about the Presidential candidates, so they voted for persons who made it a practice to have that knowledge to be their representatives to vote for the "right" person. Back then there were no rules about how individual Electors voted--they were expected to vote based on their views of the various candidates.

The Constitution does not impose any rules about how Electors must vote--those rules are left to the individual States, who make laws about it. Some States (most) require the Electors to all vote for the candidate that receives the majority of votes by the State's citizens ("winner take all"); a few have imposed some method that is more proportional, with some Electors voting for each candidate based on the percentage of citizen's votes received ("proportional voting"). Both approaches are legal under the Constitution. In fact, it would probably be legal for a State legislature to pass a law that all the Electors had to vote for a particular Party's candidate, no matter how the citizens voted. I don't think the law would last long, but presumably it could be done. I don't see any Constitutional objection to the Interstate Compact, but I do think it is ill-advised. (Perhaps it could be struck down as a violation to the rule that States are not allowed to make collective decisions or compacts outside the normal national legislature.)

What the Supreme Court is being asked to rule on is whether or not individual Electors should be allowed to vote in non-compliance to their State's provisions in law, which is a totally different matter. I suspect SCOTUS will rule that Electors must vote as described in the State's laws, not "according to their conscience".

flashguy

But the logical conclusion, if every state were to adopt such a law, would be the popular vote winner getting a unanimous EC victory. Think about it. A candidate could win the popular vote by one vote, yet the EC vote is 540 to 0. I really don't think the Founders intended anything like that to happen.

quote:

The Constitution does not impose any rules about how Electors must vote--those rules are left to the individual States, who make laws about it. Some States (most) require the Electors to all vote for the candidate that receives the majority of votes by the State's citizens ("winner take all"); a few have imposed some method that is more proportional, with some Electors voting for each candidate based on the percentage of citizen's votes received ("proportional voting").

As well it should be.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

It is a shame and a sham to think how the democrats only way to win is to always change things for themselves. We have had a good run in our republic but I fear things will only get worse.

One thing that many people don't understand is that the idea of a "national election" is fiction. There is no single election for any office.

There are 50 simultaneous, but independent, state elections. The idea of adding up the votes of those state elections into one total is an invention of the press - from a LONG time ago.

There is no requirement in the Constitution for ANY election at all for President. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct..."

The States are free to choose their electors like jury duty, to send state legislators (but not Federal), to hold an election, whatever they want.

Of course, today, the idea of voting for President is so entrenched into the culture I don't think any state could do otherwise without a huge legal battle - precedent carries a lot of weight here. But there is no Constitutional requirement for a vote.

^^^^^ Exactly. If the State does not base its selection of Electors on a popular vote (which is legal), the Presedent race does not even have to be on the ballot (and that State would not contribute to the "national count").

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
...I believe the Electoral College was initially set up because communications were inadequate for everyone to even know much about the Presidential candidates, ...

The reason for the Electoral College was the same reason (early on) Senators were appointed by the States and not by election. The Founding Fathers feared the "masses". Uneducated idiots that may vote in mass to support some stooge because he promised them more liquor. Same with the Senate, the "masses" voted for the House members but the stop gap was the appointed Senators. The FF were not dumb men, they knew how short lived democracies were.