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

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
Regardless of whether the vote is mandated, buying their vote is illegal. Just like buying a Congressman's vote is illegal.

Weak argument.
 
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.
Not according to the original intent of the Constitution.

The electors were intended to be distinguished and intelligent people capable of making these decisions on behalf the people that voted for them as representatives.
 
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
Regardless of whether the vote is mandated, buying their vote is illegal. Just like buying a Congressman's vote is illegal.

Weak argument.

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

Glad you agree with my great argument

Go suck Clintons toes
 
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.
Not according to the original intent of the Constitution.

The electors were intended to be distinguished and intelligent people capable of making these decisions on behalf the people that voted for them as representatives.
Define distinguished
 
Oh, the times, they are a-changing.

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.
Clearly you're confused.
 
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.
And the most likely elector to try to go against their state’s results would be a Trump elector, in 2020.
Lol. It's really important for you to emphasize that a couple of electors who ended up voting for Trump were faithless democrats, huh? Out of curiosity, is it more about having so much hostility for Trump that you just gotta smear him with absolutely anything you might be able to associate him with, or are you feeling vengeful about the progressive apostates that gave Trump votes that belonged to Hillary?
 
I’ll say it again: I’m happy that there will be no rogue electors, bought by Trump, or Charles Koch, or Robert Mercer, or Sheldon Adelson.

If you still can’t comprehend, ask a smart person.

I'm not certain that you'd be able to identify a smart person for me to ask. However, rest assured that nothing that you've said would be remotely difficult to comprehend for even the most mediocre of minds. The hard part is wrapping my mind around your need to emphasize that preventing a repeat of an absolutely irrelevant number of defecting electors is a significant threat that Trump presents to the nation. Smart people could speculate, but ultimately nobody's in your head but you, and I highly doubt that you're one of those rare breeds who's self aware enough to truly understand all of their own motives.
 
Oh, the times, they are a-changing.


Popular vote winner IN THE STATE.

This has nothing to do with the likely unconstitutional interstate vote compact, in fact this decision if you read it shows that the current SC might find issues with it if it were ever brought before it.


I can't see how the USSC could take issue with the compact. The States are free to appoint their electors in whatever manner they deem fit. If they deem the national popular vote to be how its done, there's no constitutional prohibition against it.

Hell, they could assign their electors to candidates alphabetically if they wanted to.

The only possible conflict I could see would be if a State agreed to the compact and then after the election, didn't want to follow it. In that scenario, it seems likely that the court would side with the State legislature's power to take back the authority to assign electors up until the electors are actually seated.

Bush V. Gore actually addressed that issue tangentially, affirming that a State legislature wasn't bound to constitutionally to the popular vote in its state, but could change its mind if it wanted to and simply give the electors to which ever candidate the legislature chose. It might run afoul of State law....but there's no constitutional prohibition against it.
 
Oh, the times, they are a-changing.


Popular vote winner IN THE STATE.

This has nothing to do with the likely unconstitutional interstate vote compact, in fact this decision if you read it shows that the current SC might find issues with it if it were ever brought before it.


I can't see how the USSC could take issue with the compact. The States are free to appoint their electors in whatever manner they deem fit. If they deem the national popular vote to be how its done, there's no constitutional prohibition against it.

Hell, they could assign their electors to candidates alphabetically if they wanted to.

The only possible conflict I could see would be if a State agreed to the compact and then after the election, didn't want to follow it. In that scenario, it seems likely that the court would side with the State legislature's power to take back the authority to assign electors up until the electors are actually seated.

Bush V. Gore actually addressed that issue tangentially, affirming that a State legislature wasn't bound to constitutionally to the popular vote in its state, but could change its mind if it wanted to and simply give the electors to which ever candidate the legislature chose. It might run afoul of State law....but there's no constitutional prohibition against it.


They also have to provide "A republican form of government", and are held to equal protection under the law, which has been interpreted to say "one person, one vote"

What is "republican" about having your majority in State vote for president be meaningless because people outside your own State voted for the other person?
 
Oh, the times, they are a-changing.


Popular vote winner IN THE STATE.

This has nothing to do with the likely unconstitutional interstate vote compact, in fact this decision if you read it shows that the current SC might find issues with it if it were ever brought before it.


That is one stupid poster....consistently steps on his own dick....or the female equivalent thereof. Snarky too....but almost always wrong.

LOL...

jO
 
Oh, the times, they are a-changing.


Popular vote winner IN THE STATE.

This has nothing to do with the likely unconstitutional interstate vote compact, in fact this decision if you read it shows that the current SC might find issues with it if it were ever brought before it.


I can't see how the USSC could take issue with the compact. The States are free to appoint their electors in whatever manner they deem fit. If they deem the national popular vote to be how its done, there's no constitutional prohibition against it.

Hell, they could assign their electors to candidates alphabetically if they wanted to.

The only possible conflict I could see would be if a State agreed to the compact and then after the election, didn't want to follow it. In that scenario, it seems likely that the court would side with the State legislature's power to take back the authority to assign electors up until the electors are actually seated.

Bush V. Gore actually addressed that issue tangentially, affirming that a State legislature wasn't bound to constitutionally to the popular vote in its state, but could change its mind if it wanted to and simply give the electors to which ever candidate the legislature chose. It might run afoul of State law....but there's no constitutional prohibition against it.


They also have to provide "A republican form of government", and are held to equal protection under the law, which has been interpreted to say "one person, one vote"

What is "republican" about having your majority in State vote for president be meaningless because people outside your own State voted for the other person?


The 'republican' form of government is fulfilled in the States determining the method of their electors appointment.

And the constitution is clear that the States can choose whatever manner they wish:

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

From Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 Constitution of the United States

And if the States 'shall direct' that the popular vote be the method that is used to appoint there electors, all aspects of 'constitutional republic' are fulfilled. And certainly every constitutional requirement.

If the State wants to draw names out of a straw hat, that's perfectly constitutional. They get to choose who their electors are appointed. Including the popular vote.

Nor have you provided a single reason based in precedent or the constitution that would prevent this.
 
Oh, the times, they are a-changing.


Popular vote winner IN THE STATE.

This has nothing to do with the likely unconstitutional interstate vote compact, in fact this decision if you read it shows that the current SC might find issues with it if it were ever brought before it.


I can't see how the USSC could take issue with the compact. The States are free to appoint their electors in whatever manner they deem fit. If they deem the national popular vote to be how its done, there's no constitutional prohibition against it.

Hell, they could assign their electors to candidates alphabetically if they wanted to.

The only possible conflict I could see would be if a State agreed to the compact and then after the election, didn't want to follow it. In that scenario, it seems likely that the court would side with the State legislature's power to take back the authority to assign electors up until the electors are actually seated.

Bush V. Gore actually addressed that issue tangentially, affirming that a State legislature wasn't bound to constitutionally to the popular vote in its state, but could change its mind if it wanted to and simply give the electors to which ever candidate the legislature chose. It might run afoul of State law....but there's no constitutional prohibition against it.


They also have to provide "A republican form of government", and are held to equal protection under the law, which has been interpreted to say "one person, one vote"

What is "republican" about having your majority in State vote for president be meaningless because people outside your own State voted for the other person?


The 'republican' form of government is fulfilled in the States determining the method of their electors appointment.

And the constitution is clear that the States can choose whatever manner they wish:

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

From Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 Constitution of the United States

And if the States 'shall direct' that the popular vote be the method that is used to appoint there electors, all aspects of 'constitutional republic' are fulfilled. And certainly every constitutional requirement.

If the State wants to draw names out of a straw hat, that's perfectly constitutional. They get to choose who their electors are appointed. Including the popular vote.

Nor have you provided a single reason based in precedent or the constitution that would prevent this.


It takes the vote effectively out of their hands. and the constitution actually does place some limits, via the Civil War Amendments and the Civil Rights Act of 1965.

And no, the straw hat thing wouldn't be a "republican" form of government.

The biggest issue with the compact is that you know that the second a State is forced to place their electors for someone who lost the State they will try to weasel their way out of it.

This isn't about fairness, it's about one party's quest for permanent power.
 
Oh, the times, they are a-changing.


Popular vote winner IN THE STATE.

This has nothing to do with the likely unconstitutional interstate vote compact, in fact this decision if you read it shows that the current SC might find issues with it if it were ever brought before it.


I can't see how the USSC could take issue with the compact. The States are free to appoint their electors in whatever manner they deem fit. If they deem the national popular vote to be how its done, there's no constitutional prohibition against it.

Hell, they could assign their electors to candidates alphabetically if they wanted to.

The only possible conflict I could see would be if a State agreed to the compact and then after the election, didn't want to follow it. In that scenario, it seems likely that the court would side with the State legislature's power to take back the authority to assign electors up until the electors are actually seated.

Bush V. Gore actually addressed that issue tangentially, affirming that a State legislature wasn't bound to constitutionally to the popular vote in its state, but could change its mind if it wanted to and simply give the electors to which ever candidate the legislature chose. It might run afoul of State law....but there's no constitutional prohibition against it.


They also have to provide "A republican form of government", and are held to equal protection under the law, which has been interpreted to say "one person, one vote"

What is "republican" about having your majority in State vote for president be meaningless because people outside your own State voted for the other person?


The 'republican' form of government is fulfilled in the States determining the method of their electors appointment.

And the constitution is clear that the States can choose whatever manner they wish:

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

From Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 Constitution of the United States

And if the States 'shall direct' that the popular vote be the method that is used to appoint there electors, all aspects of 'constitutional republic' are fulfilled. And certainly every constitutional requirement.

If the State wants to draw names out of a straw hat, that's perfectly constitutional. They get to choose who their electors are appointed. Including the popular vote.

Nor have you provided a single reason based in precedent or the constitution that would prevent this.


It takes the vote effectively out of their hands. and the constitution actually does place some limits, via the Civil War Amendments and the Civil Rights Act of 1965.


Nonsense. If a State has chosen that its electors are appointed in according to the Popular Vote, then their electors being appointed in accordance with the Popular Vote is in exact accordance with their decision on how appoint their electors.

Its both constitutional and a demonstration of republican government....as the States have exercised their authority to choose their own method for the appointment of electors.

That's what republican government is.
And no, the straw hat thing wouldn't be a "republican" form of government.

Of course it would. As republican government is the States exercising their authority on how the electors are assigned. If they choose the straw hat (or alphabetical order, or zodiac sign, or the popular vote in their state, or the popular vote in their country), they are excercising their authority.

Even logically, your argument is nonsense. As the State legislatures aren't directly choosing their electors when they use the popular vote within their state. The people of the state are making that choice.......having been vested with the power granted the State legislatures in the Constitution BY the State Legislatures.

By your own reasoning, the system used by EVERY state in the union would be a violation of 'republican' government.

Your argment is a self contradictory mess.

In reality, any method chosen by the State Legislatures would be an expression of 'republican government'. Whether or not it was constitutional would depend on if it violated constitutional rights held by the people.

The biggest issue with the compact is that you know that the second a State is forced to place their electors for someone who lost the State they will try to weasel their way out of it.

This isn't about fairness, it's about one party's quest for permanent power.

The State isn't 'forced'. The State has CHOSEN to. This is another place where your argument breaks. As you're illogically inferring coercion to a process that the State has lawfully CHOSEN to be part of.

That's not coercion. That's not force. That's choice. And its the choice that the State Legislatures get to make per the Constitution. Using any method they chose. You're insisting that the States are 'bound' to methods that you approve of. But there are no such restrictions in the constitution, law, or even logic.

You restrictions on what methods the States are 'allowed' to use are completely arbitrary. And have no basis in the constitution or any court ruling. You've made the up.

And the Supreme Court is certainly not bound to your inventions.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top