AP: Supreme Court rules states can require presidential electors to back popular vote winner.

[esalla]

The decision appears to be unanimous with two concurring opinions. I have not read the entire opinion so I may revise my opinion later. SCOTUS does call into question the whole rationale for the electoral college. The framers wanted the electors to use independent judgment in selecting a president. If the electors can not do that then what is their purpose? The case makes a compelling argument to dissolve the electoral college once and for all and elect a president just go on popular vote.

If the college has the right to overrule the people, what is the purpose of people voting in the first place

Which is why the Electoral College needs to be abandoned.

Nope it's been working just fine so there is no need to change anything

 

[my2¢]

If this means state binding rules are constitutional, I don't see where that stops binding rules applied to the national popular vote winner instead of a particular candidate. These are the questions put before the court:

Question
1. Do the petitioners in this case, the presidential electors, have judicial standing to sue the state of Colorado over a law requiring them to vote in the Electoral College for the winner of the popular vote in that state?
2. Is that Colorado law unconstitutional?

{{meta.fullTitle}}

 

[TemplarKormac]

HAHAHAHAHA!

Supreme Court rules 'faithless electors' can't go rogue at Electoral College

The decision is a win for election officials who warned of chaos if presidential electors could go against the will of voters in their states.

www.nbcnews.com

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[TemplarKormac]

LOOK AT HOW SYNTH LIED.

Bookmarked this thread for posterity.

 

[Papageorgio]

Oh, the times, they are a-changing.

Nothing has changed, they still vote for the winner of the state's popular vote, not the national vote.

 

[Papageorgio]

The decision appears to be unanimous with two concurring opinions. I have not read the entire opinion so I may revise my opinion later. SCOTUS does call into question the whole rationale for the electoral college. The framers wanted the electors to use independent judgment in selecting a president. If the electors can not do that then what is their purpose? The case makes a compelling argument to dissolve the electoral college once and for all and elect a president just on popular vote.

I'm not sure why states tried this ploy rather than work on repealing the Electoral College to begin with. Of course repealing of the College would take much more effort than trying to circumvent the law.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The decision appears to be unanimous with two concurring opinions. I have not read the entire opinion so I may revise my opinion later. SCOTUS does call into question the whole rationale for the electoral college. The framers wanted the electors to use independent judgment in selecting a president. If the electors can not do that then what is their purpose? The case makes a compelling argument to dissolve the electoral college once and for all and elect a president just on popular vote.

Actually, it makes a case for getting back to what the constitution says, doing away with the popular vote altogether, since the constitution actually doesnt give the people the right to vote for presidents.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The decision appears to be unanimous with two concurring opinions. I have not read the entire opinion so I may revise my opinion later. SCOTUS does call into question the whole rationale for the electoral college. The framers wanted the electors to use independent judgment in selecting a president. If the electors can not do that then what is their purpose? The case makes a compelling argument to dissolve the electoral college once and for all and elect a president just go on popular vote.

If the college has the right to overrule the people, what is the purpose of people voting in the first place

There is no point, as the constitution doesnt actually give the people the right to vote for president.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Oh, the times, they are a-changing.

You're an idiot it..they where trying to get rid of Trump



As Michael Baca, the faithless elector from Colorado, put it in an NPR interview, the idea was to "reach across the aisle" to Republican electors in 2016 and try to find a candidate that some Republican delegates would be willing to support other than Donald Trump.

Supreme Court Rules State 'Faithless Elector' Laws Constitutional

The decision could directly affect the election, which will take place in November amid a pandemic and a partial economic collapse.

www.npr.org

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If this means state binding rules are constitutional, I don't see where that stops binding rules applied to the national popular vote winner instead of a particular candidate. These are the questions put before the court:

Question
1. Do the petitioners in this case, the presidential electors, have judicial standing to sue the state of Colorado over a law requiring them to vote in the Electoral College for the winner of the popular vote in that state?
2. Is that Colorado law unconstitutional?

{{meta.fullTitle}}

The new law is for the EC to side with the National, not the State totals. Currently (for 2020) the EC must vote for whomever the state popular vote goes for. But in the elections after that (2024) if the law is still in place, the EC must vote for in favor of the total National Vote. It's a knew slapping backslash over the last election (2016) where the EC was bound to vote with the popular state majority but one tried to go to court to change his vote to Rump. That particular EC's suit was summarily dismissed.

Under a normal world, the EC system works as it is. The new law as not left up to the voters. IT was done at a time when the Democrats had a large majority in both houses. Today, the Republicans have a larger group in the State Congress so something like that can't be passed. It's another case of having one party having to much power. It means that nonsense like this can slip through the crack. I have a feeling that it's going to be taken to court after November to get it back to the way that it's been in Colorado for decades.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oh, the times, they are a-changing.

You're an idiot it..they where trying to get rid of Trump



As Michael Baca, the faithless elector from Colorado, put it in an NPR interview, the idea was to "reach across the aisle" to Republican electors in 2016 and try to find a candidate that some Republican delegates would be willing to support other than Donald Trump.

Supreme Court Rules State 'Faithless Elector' Laws Constitutional

The decision could directly affect the election, which will take place in November amid a pandemic and a partial economic collapse.

www.npr.org

Makes sense. One of the primary functions of the EC is to keep unfit people like Trump out of office. Obviously, it failed miserably, in that regard.

 

[hadit]

The decision appears to be unanimous with two concurring opinions. I have not read the entire opinion so I may revise my opinion later. SCOTUS does call into question the whole rationale for the electoral college. The framers wanted the electors to use independent judgment in selecting a president. If the electors can not do that then what is their purpose? The case makes a compelling argument to dissolve the electoral college once and for all and elect a president just go on popular vote.

If the college has the right to overrule the people, what is the purpose of people voting in the first place

They originally didn't. The president was never supposed to be elected by the people.

 

[hadit]

No objection to the ruling. That said, it makes the EC almost superfluous.

No you don't get it either....it makes the EC be the EC that was intended when enacted....it strengthens it.....

Isn't it the popular vote of each state determines the winner?

Not necessarily. Some states award proportional EC votes. Look it up.

 

[hadit]

Oh, the times, they are a-changing.

You're an idiot it..they where trying to get rid of Trump



As Michael Baca, the faithless elector from Colorado, put it in an NPR interview, the idea was to "reach across the aisle" to Republican electors in 2016 and try to find a candidate that some Republican delegates would be willing to support other than Donald Trump.

Supreme Court Rules State 'Faithless Elector' Laws Constitutional

The decision could directly affect the election, which will take place in November amid a pandemic and a partial economic collapse.

www.npr.org

Makes sense. One of the primary functions of the EC is to keep unfit people like Trump out of office. Obviously, it failed miserably, in that regard.

Thankfully, it succeeded in keeping an even greater disaster out of office.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Oh, the times, they are a-changing.

If you think that this ruling was about states being able to shirk the will of their own voters and send their electors to vote in favor of whoever won the national popular vote, then I'd have to guess you didn't actually read any of the articles about what you're posting.

The decision simply says that the electors can't take it upon themselves to shirk the will of the state that sent them.

I swear, every day it looks more and more like the average lefty sees the first four or five words in a headline and then fills in the narrative themselves based on whatever emotion pops up first.

Exactly. Two states that voted for Hillary had electors who voted for Trump. No more of that shit.

That's an interesting take for a Democrat. You do realize that this means that, in the event of a Trump victory in the EC and a Biden win in the national popular vote, you anti-EC lefties'll absolutely have to deal with those results?

At any rate, we actually agree on this one. I've never liked the idea of the individual electors having the power to do their own thing and tell the state that sent them to F off.

 

[Sunsettommy]

No objection to the ruling. That said, it makes the EC almost superfluous.

No you don't get it either....it makes the EC be the EC that was intended when enacted....it strengthens it.....

Isn't it the popular vote of each state determines the winner?

We are a representative republic....look it up....its a genius move by our founders and the EC is in place to keep more populated states from ruling over less populated states....this way every city and state chooses our president not just NY and LA....really....read up on it and I'm sure you will at least understand if not appreciate the EC....

That’s didn’t answer my question. Does the popular vote of each state determine the winner?

Edit: in determining who the electors will choose.

SCOTUS already answered that question, try reading the decision next time....

 

[Rambunctious]

because the popular vote of each state was and is being used to determine the winner

Not fully....this is why the EC was created....to allow more populated states to have an edge but not hand them the keys to every presidential election....it causes the candidates to have to campaign in every state to win...they must appeal to people of all regions of the nation to have a chance at all of the 270 electoral votes....Hillary didn't follow that script in 2016 and you can see the outcome....she lost even though she had more over all votes....

The EC keeps our electoral system a republic and not a pure democracy....because people are fallible...lets say we are in a room of 10 people....6 men and 4 women and this room is a pure democracy....so they vote on legalizing rape....the 4 women vote no...the 6 men vote yes....in that pure democracy the men would win and the women would be raped....the founders knew we were far from perfect and that is why they set the nation up as they did.....don't allow fallible people to talk you into changing it.....

 

[justinacolmena]

If the college has the right to overrule the people, what is the purpose of people voting in the first place

The electors' job is to deliver the results of the presidential ballot counts in each state to Congress and formalize and certify the election at the national level in order to install the president-elect in office at inauguration time.

If there is unrest in some states, or recounts are needed, or certain states are seceding from the union, or some other breakdown in the process occurs, the Electoral College system is designed to ensure resilience, disaster recovery, and continuity of government.

The electors have sworn an oath to faithfully represent the votes of their home states. If they vote otherwise, then they are dealt with after the manner of oath-breakers. Nonetheless, the electors may in certain situations have to make unanticipated and unforeseen human decisions.

 

[wamose]

The first thing they should do is test Biden for mental competency. If they did that, the second thing they would have to do is get a new candidate.

 

[esalla]

If the college has the right to overrule the people, what is the purpose of people voting in the first place

The electors' job is to deliver the results of the presidential ballot counts in each state to Congress and formalize and certify the election at the national level in order to install the president-elect in office at inauguration time.

If there is unrest in some states, or recounts are needed, or certain states are seceding from the union, or some other breakdown in the process occurs, the Electoral College system is designed to ensure resilience, disaster recovery, and continuity of government.

The electors have sworn an oath to faithfully represent the votes of their home states. If they vote otherwise, then they are dealt with after the manner of oath-breakers. Nonetheless, the electors may in certain situations have to make unanticipated and unforeseen human decisions.

If the college is not mandated to vote with the people anyone could easily buy their votes