Should presidential electors be permitted to vote for whomever they please?

[JLW]

There are 538 electors. These electors cast votes in the electoral college after a presidential election and those votes elect the president. The Supreme Court will soon hear a case concerning “faithless electors”. These are electors who do not vote for the person they were assigned to vote for. Some states have laws requiring electors to vote for the candidate they were appointed to represent. However, a district court has held that an elector can vote for whomever they please.

My view is that if 538 electors can choose to vote for whomever they choose then what was the value of the 150 million votes that were cast. Some will say well the popular vote does not elect the president. True, but the populate vote determines who wins the state and thus the electors.

Faithless electors have always been part of US history, however, they have been footnotes in history.

Now there are movements to change their votes after the election.

‘We may one day have a situation where someone wins the electoral vote in the election but loses in the electoral college.

Anything is possible.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...sider-faithless-electors-ahead-2020-vote.html
Supreme Court will rule on whether electoral college voters have to support the popular vote winner | Daily Mail Online

 

[basquebromance]

yes

 

[Maxdeath]

There should never be faithless electoral votes. They are part of the electoral college because they have pledged to vote as the people have voted. They are an arm of the people.

 

[Mac-7]

There are 538 electors. These electors cast votes in the electoral college after a presidential election and those votes elect the president. The Supreme Court will soon hear a case concerning “faithless electors”. These are electors who do not vote for the person they were assigned to vote for. Some states have laws requiring electors to vote for the candidate they were appointed to represent. However, a district court has held that an elector can vote for whomever they please.

My view is that if 538 electors can choose to vote for whomever they choose then what was the value of the 150 million votes that were cast. Some will say well the popular vote does elect the president. True, but the populate vote determines who wins the state and thus the electors.

Faithless electors have always been part of US history, however, they have been footnotes in history.

Now there are movements to change their votes after the election.

‘We may one day have a situation where someone wins the electoral vote in the election but loses in the electoral college.

Anything is possible.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...sider-faithless-electors-ahead-2020-vote.html
Supreme Court will rule on whether electoral college voters have to support the popular vote winner | Daily Mail Online

Liberals are up for any trick that turns defeat into victory for them

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

No.

 

[task0778]

IMHO it should automatic, no human electors at all. Whoever wins the popular vote in a state automatically gets the electoral college votes apportioned to that state. A couple of states apportion the electoral college votes according to the vote count, whatever. And I don't think it should be allowed to give a state's electoral college votes to the popular winner nation-wide, but that's another discussion.

The voters in each state decide who they wanted to be their president. No one else should have the power to override that.

 

[rightwinger]

Hell no

We should not even have Presidential Electors
They serve no purpose

 

[2aguy]

There are 538 electors. These electors cast votes in the electoral college after a presidential election and those votes elect the president. The Supreme Court will soon hear a case concerning “faithless electors”. These are electors who do not vote for the person they were assigned to vote for. Some states have laws requiring electors to vote for the candidate they were appointed to represent. However, a district court has held that an elector can vote for whomever they please.

My view is that if 538 electors can choose to vote for whomever they choose then what was the value of the 150 million votes that were cast. Some will say well the popular vote does elect the president. True, but the populate vote determines who wins the state and thus the electors.

Faithless electors have always been part of US history, however, they have been footnotes in history.

Now there are movements to change their votes after the election.

‘We may one day have a situation where someone wins the electoral vote in the election but loses in the electoral college.

Anything is possible.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...sider-faithless-electors-ahead-2020-vote.html
Supreme Court will rule on whether electoral college voters have to support the popular vote winner | Daily Mail Online

No....that would be chaos......

 

[justoffal]

There are 538 electors. These electors cast votes in the electoral college after a presidential election and those votes elect the president. The Supreme Court will soon hear a case concerning “faithless electors”. These are electors who do not vote for the person they were assigned to vote for. Some states have laws requiring electors to vote for the candidate they were appointed to represent. However, a district court has held that an elector can vote for whomever they please.

My view is that if 538 electors can choose to vote for whomever they choose then what was the value of the 150 million votes that were cast. Some will say well the popular vote does elect the president. True, but the populate vote determines who wins the state and thus the electors.

Faithless electors have always been part of US history, however, they have been footnotes in history.

Now there are movements to change their votes after the election.

‘We may one day have a situation where someone wins the electoral vote in the election but loses in the electoral college.

Anything is possible.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...sider-faithless-electors-ahead-2020-vote.html
Supreme Court will rule on whether electoral college voters have to support the popular vote winner | Daily Mail Online

They can try but if they do that the supreme Court will simply correct their votes to reflect the popular vote of the state. They cannot vote against their own state.... I'm sure this time around some of them will try.

Jo

 

[rightwinger]

Electors are just ceremonial and add nothing to the process
Just political patronage

Get rid of them

 

[justoffal]

There should never be faithless electoral votes. They are part of the electoral college because they have pledged to vote as the people have voted. They are an arm of the people.

It doesn't matter if there are faithless votes
They will instantly be corrected by an emergency scotus session.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

Electors are just ceremonial and add nothing to the process
Just political patronage

Get rid of them

BINGO!

JO

 

[justoffal]

Hell no

We should not even have Presidential Electors
They serve no purpose

I going to have to agree here.

Jo

 

[task0778]

FYI:

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a pair of cases on the issue of "faithless electors," members of the Electoral College who choose not to support the presidential candidate picked by the voters in their state. The court granted the appeals in two cases out of Washington state and Colorado. Those cases challenge laws seeking to keep electors from going against the wishes of voters.

In 2016, one elector in Colorado voted for John Kasich, one in Hawaii voted for Bernie Sanders, and four in Washington state voted for two different people -- three for Colin Powell and one for Faith Spotted Eagle, the name of a Native American activist, not Elizabeth Warren. Other Democratic electors contemplated voting differently but were reportedly pressured into voting for Clinton. Colorado simply replaced its errant elector with one that would vote for Hillary, while Washington state fined their independent-thinking electors for violating state law.

The Washington state Supreme Court ruled against the electors who challenged the fines imposed upon them. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Steven Gonzalez took issue with the court's decision, arguing "[t]he Constitution provides the state only with the power to appoint, leaving the electors with the discretion to vote their conscience."

While states can choose their own electors and require them to pledge certain loyalties, once the electors form the electoral college they are no longer serving a state function but a federal one.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Justice Gonzalez's dissent, ruling that electors can vote for any legitimate candidate they choose. "The states' power to appoint electors does not include the power to remove them or nullify their votes," the 10th Circuit declared.

In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state laws requiring electors to abide by the popular vote of the state did not violate the Constitution, but the high court never ruled whether the states can enforce those pledges after the fact.

According to the nonprofit FairVote, 32 states and the District of Columbia legally require electors to cast their votes for their pledged candidate. Four of them allow faithless electors to be penalized and another 11 give officials the power to cancel their vote or remove them.


I see no reason why the electoral college votes should not be automatic, no choice. But if no one gets the required 270 electoral votes on the 1st round, then things can get a little hairy.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Electors are just ceremonial and add nothing to the process
Just political patronage

Get rid of them

You might wanna stay away from the thread where the lefties are bashing those they feel have no respect for the constitution.

 

[rightwinger]

Electors are just ceremonial and add nothing to the process
Just political patronage

Get rid of them

You might wanna stay away from the thread where the lefties are bashing those they feel have no respect for the constitution.

Why?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Why?

It's what they do

 

[JLW]

FYI:

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a pair of cases on the issue of "faithless electors," members of the Electoral College who choose not to support the presidential candidate picked by the voters in their state. The court granted the appeals in two cases out of Washington state and Colorado. Those cases challenge laws seeking to keep electors from going against the wishes of voters.

In 2016, one elector in Colorado voted for John Kasich, one in Hawaii voted for Bernie Sanders, and four in Washington state voted for two different people -- three for Colin Powell and one for Faith Spotted Eagle, the name of a Native American activist, not Elizabeth Warren. Other Democratic electors contemplated voting differently but were reportedly pressured into voting for Clinton. Colorado simply replaced its errant elector with one that would vote for Hillary, while Washington state fined their independent-thinking electors for violating state law.

The Washington state Supreme Court ruled against the electors who challenged the fines imposed upon them. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Steven Gonzalez took issue with the court's decision, arguing "[t]he Constitution provides the state only with the power to appoint, leaving the electors with the discretion to vote their conscience."

While states can choose their own electors and require them to pledge certain loyalties, once the electors form the electoral college they are no longer serving a state function but a federal one.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Justice Gonzalez's dissent, ruling that electors can vote for any legitimate candidate they choose. "The states' power to appoint electors does not include the power to remove them or nullify their votes," the 10th Circuit declared.

In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state laws requiring electors to abide by the popular vote of the state did not violate the Constitution, but the high court never ruled whether the states can enforce those pledges after the fact.

According to the nonprofit FairVote, 32 states and the District of Columbia legally require electors to cast their votes for their pledged candidate. Four of them allow faithless electors to be penalized and another 11 give officials the power to cancel their vote or remove them.


I see no reason why the electoral college votes should not be automatic, no choice. But if no one gets the required 270 electoral votes on the 1st round, then things can get a little hairy.

2016 was anomaly in the number of faithless electors. Chaos will rule if electors can choose whomever they want. Then the only votes that matter are those of the 536 electors. Who knows in this day and age what could happen if a group of electors choose to disrupt an election.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

What is the Electoral College?

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

FYI:

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a pair of cases on the issue of "faithless electors," members of the Electoral College who choose not to support the presidential candidate picked by the voters in their state. The court granted the appeals in two cases out of Washington state and Colorado. Those cases challenge laws seeking to keep electors from going against the wishes of voters.

In 2016, one elector in Colorado voted for John Kasich, one in Hawaii voted for Bernie Sanders, and four in Washington state voted for two different people -- three for Colin Powell and one for Faith Spotted Eagle, the name of a Native American activist, not Elizabeth Warren. Other Democratic electors contemplated voting differently but were reportedly pressured into voting for Clinton. Colorado simply replaced its errant elector with one that would vote for Hillary, while Washington state fined their independent-thinking electors for violating state law.

The Washington state Supreme Court ruled against the electors who challenged the fines imposed upon them. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Steven Gonzalez took issue with the court's decision, arguing "[t]he Constitution provides the state only with the power to appoint, leaving the electors with the discretion to vote their conscience."

While states can choose their own electors and require them to pledge certain loyalties, once the electors form the electoral college they are no longer serving a state function but a federal one.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Justice Gonzalez's dissent, ruling that electors can vote for any legitimate candidate they choose. "The states' power to appoint electors does not include the power to remove them or nullify their votes," the 10th Circuit declared.

In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state laws requiring electors to abide by the popular vote of the state did not violate the Constitution, but the high court never ruled whether the states can enforce those pledges after the fact.

According to the nonprofit FairVote, 32 states and the District of Columbia legally require electors to cast their votes for their pledged candidate. Four of them allow faithless electors to be penalized and another 11 give officials the power to cancel their vote or remove them.


I see no reason why the electoral college votes should not be automatic, no choice. But if no one gets the required 270 electoral votes on the 1st round, then things can get a little hairy.

2016 was anomaly in the number of faithless electors. Chaos will rule if electors can choose whomever they want. Then the only votes that matter are those of the 536 electors. Who knows in this day and age what could happen if a group of electors choose to disrupt an election.

Why is "this day and age" different.

I love listening to tards who "know better" than the Founders.

I especially love how you guys destroyed the purpose of the U.S. Senate by choosing them with the vote. You did good destroying that institution.