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

[rightwinger]

If the court rules electors must vote for whoever the election says won......why do we need them to just rubber stamp the results?

If a state has 20 EVs and the popular vote goes for a candidate, just automatically award the 20 EVs to that candidate

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Direct vote of Senators prevents back room deals and political corruption bypassing the will of the people

 

[Frankeneinstein]

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

Get rid of them

Electors are not "just ceremonial" and they are the process, you do not vote for a candidate, you vote for the electors candidate, not the candidate himself...i.e. the name you pull the switch for is the name the electors are supporting...now I'm sure this will not change your mind but like the second amendment it is the constitutional way not the liberal way.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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.

Direct vote of Senators prevents back room deals and political corruption bypassing the will of the people

The Senate was to be chosen by the state legislators. You guys are the devil. You destroy everything.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Get rid of them

Electors are not "just ceremonial" and they are the process, you do not vote for a candidate, you vote for the electors candidate, not the candidate himself...i.e. the name you pull the switch for is the name the electors are supporting...now I'm sure this will not change your mind but like the second amendment it is the constitutional way not the liberal way.

Then why is SCOTUS forcing them to vote for a candidate?

If the law says it is mandatory who they vote for....who needs them?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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

Get rid of them

Electors are not "just ceremonial" and they are the process, you do not vote for a candidate, you vote for the electors candidate, not the candidate himself...i.e. the name you pull the switch for is the name the electors are supporting...now I'm sure this will not change your mind but like the second amendment it is the constitutional way not the liberal way.

But tards know more than the Founders. When they c are not win honestly, they change the system. Treasonous scum! All of them!

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Then why is SCOTUS forcing them to vote for a candidate?

In the sense that what you call "forcing" is really called a "ruling" they were asked to do it...surely with all the "activist" 'forcing' the left has gotten away with and is so used to getting around everything through the courts [from voting, to executive orders, to "medical procedures" to stop the "LIFE Liberty and pursuit of happiness of Americas unborn] you must be somewhat familiar with the process.
Do you have any idea how this works?...you do know there is a set of different electors for each candidate in each and every state don't you?...You do know that those electors are chosen by each candidate themselves for their loyalty to the candidate...these electors are usually the closest most trusted people in either the candidates life or those around him [Mothers, Fathers, brothers, sisters etc.] rogue electors are rare and usually mean they went off the reservation due to outside influence in which case they allowed themselves to be chosen under false pretenses

If the law says it is mandatory who they vote for....who needs them?

You're just running from your post that I was responding to in which you claimed the electoral college was just ceremonial and I proved it was not.

 

[justoffal]

Hell no

We should not even have Presidential Electors
They serve no purpose

I'm going to have to agree here.

Jo

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.
Supreme Court will rule on whether electoral college voters have to support the popular vote winner | Daily Mail Online

Faithless electors should be unconstitutional.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Get rid of them

The EC prevented 4MM illegals in CA from picking Hillary as POTUS

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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

Get rid of them

The EC prevented 4MM illegals in CA from picking Hillary as POTUS

And THAT is one of several reasons we are blessed with this system even as the left tries to destroy it.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Hell no

We should not even have Presidential Electors
They serve no purpose

When you can't win the game change the rules, huh?

 

[MAGAman]

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.
Supreme Court will rule on whether electoral college voters have to support the popular vote winner | Daily Mail Online

Democrats will undoubtedly support anything that brings them power.

Fascists are like that.

 

[Polishprince]

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.
Supreme Court will rule on whether electoral college voters have to support the popular vote winner | Daily Mail Online

Faithless electors are pretty rare, but this is by design. The folks that get chosen to be on the electoral slates are highly place party officials and employees, people that have donated a lot to the presidential candidate. The aren't random citizens, or random party members.

 

[rightwinger]

Hell no

We should not even have Presidential Electors
They serve no purpose

When you can't win the game change the rules, huh?

Electors have nothing to do with the process

They either get to vote how they want or they are a rubber stamp

If they are just a rubber stamp of the results, who needs them?

 

[rightwinger]

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.
Supreme Court will rule on whether electoral college voters have to support the popular vote winner | Daily Mail Online

Faithless electors are pretty rare, but this is by design. The folks that get chosen to be on the electoral slates are highly place party officials and employees, people that have donated a lot to the presidential candidate. The aren't random citizens, or random party members.

They are just political cronies getting patronage
Who needs them?

 

[Polishprince]

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.
Supreme Court will rule on whether electoral college voters have to support the popular vote winner | Daily Mail Online

Faithless electors are pretty rare, but this is by design. The folks that get chosen to be on the electoral slates are highly place party officials and employees, people that have donated a lot to the presidential candidate. The aren't random citizens, or random party members.

They are just political cronies getting patronage
Who needs them?

These are people who are vested with the idea of honoring the choice of the electorate of their state.

Sounds like team players that everyone would need

 

[MaryL]

Why not?

 

[whitehall]

The question only comes up when democrats have a loser candidate (or a car load of them). The answer is "NO".

 

[rightwinger]

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.
Supreme Court will rule on whether electoral college voters have to support the popular vote winner | Daily Mail Online

Faithless electors are pretty rare, but this is by design. The folks that get chosen to be on the electoral slates are highly place party officials and employees, people that have donated a lot to the presidential candidate. The aren't random citizens, or random party members.

They are just political cronies getting patronage
Who needs them?

These are people who are vested with the idea of honoring the choice of the electorate of their state.

Sounds like team players that everyone would need

If they are just a rubber stamp, what purpose do they serve?