Supremes Hold Electors To Pledge

[Billy_Kinetta]

Just now. Electors vote must reflect the state.

Supreme Court rules electoral college representatives must honor the choice of state's voters

 

[pknopp]

Interesting. Seems to me to be a good ruling but I haven't gave this one a lot of thought.

 

[pknopp]

I'm just now reading.......unanimous decision. Now those who advocate for the end of the electoral college will have to do it the way the founders intended. A Constitutional Amendment.

Again, a unanimous decision.

 

[Oddball]

Unanimous decision....This is on the order of the Monglos and HA getting together to fight the Antifaggots.

 

[Montrovant]

I'd like to see the details. I was under the impression that the original intent of the system was for the electors to have the choice to vote for whomever they wanted, but that doesn't mean states don't have the power to compel them. I'm interested in reading both the majority decision and the dissent, if there is one.

 

[JoeB131]

A meaningless decision because we long ago abandoned an Electoral College that deliberates and just filled it with hacks.

another good reason to get rid of the Electoral College.

 

[Moonglow]

Anxious to avoid chaos in the electoral college just months before the U.S. vote, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that electors who formally select the president can be required by the state they represent to cast their ballot for the candidate who won their state's popular vote.


They can be required by the state per state rules.. Since the Constitution didn't specify the how the vote was to be used.

 

[WinterBorn]

Just now. Electors vote must reflect the state.

Supreme Court rules electoral college representatives must honor the choice of state's voters

I agree, this was a good decision. It has always bothered me that the electoral college reps were not required to cast their vote as the voters elected them to do.

 

[theHawk]

Just now. Electors vote must reflect the state.

Supreme Court rules electoral college representatives must honor the choice of state's voters

Poor leftwingers, they can’t dictate the electors of a state to vote for the national popular vote winner.

 

[martybegan]

Just now. Electors vote must reflect the state.

Supreme Court rules electoral college representatives must honor the choice of state's voters

Poor leftwingers, they can’t dictate the electors of a state to vote for the national popular vote winner.

Not sure if the decision goes that far. What this does is say the State can punish electors that vote against the State's election results based on the rules set forth by the State.

 

[theHawk]

A meaningless decision because we long ago abandoned an Electoral College that deliberates and just filled it with hacks.

another good reason to get rid of the Electoral College.

^^ butthurt communist.

 

[bendog]

I'm just now reading.......unanimous decision. Now those who advocate for the end of the electoral college will have to do it the way the founders intended. A Constitutional Amendment.

Again, a unanimous decision.

Not necessarily. I don't read the opinions as saying states cannot pass laws apportioning their electoral votes by the popular vote in the state, or even nationally. Individual electors cannot just choose whom to vote for though.

 

[pknopp]

I'm just now reading.......unanimous decision. Now those who advocate for the end of the electoral college will have to do it the way the founders intended. A Constitutional Amendment.

Again, a unanimous decision.

Not necessarily. I don't read the opinions as saying states cannot pass laws apportioning their electoral votes by the popular vote in the state, or even nationally. Individual electors cannot just choose whom to vote for though.

Being a unanimous decision I doubt the court will allow any changes.

 

[martybegan]

I'm just now reading.......unanimous decision. Now those who advocate for the end of the electoral college will have to do it the way the founders intended. A Constitutional Amendment.

Again, a unanimous decision.

Not necessarily. I don't read the opinions as saying states cannot pass laws apportioning their electoral votes by the popular vote in the state, or even nationally. Individual electors cannot just choose whom to vote for though.

By referring to the popular vote in the State itself as being the current system everything is based on, I think they showed they would have issue with the Interstate Vote Compact if it ever came before the court.

They could have just left it as "the method the State uses to choose electors", instead they referred to the State level popular vote.

 

[bendog]

I'm just now reading.......unanimous decision. Now those who advocate for the end of the electoral college will have to do it the way the founders intended. A Constitutional Amendment.

Again, a unanimous decision.

Not necessarily. I don't read the opinions as saying states cannot pass laws apportioning their electoral votes by the popular vote in the state, or even nationally. Individual electors cannot just choose whom to vote for though.

Being a unanimous decision I doubt the court will allow any changes.

It's not a change. P9
Article II, §1’s appointments power gives the States far-reaching authority over presidential electors, absent someother constitutional constraint.4 As noted earlier, each State may appoint electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." Art. II, §1, cl. 2; see supra, at 2. This Court has described that clause as "conveying the broadest power of determination" over who becomes an elector. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 27 (1892).5 And the power to appoint an elector (in any manner) includespower to condition his appointment—that is, to say what the elector must do for the appointment to take effect. A State can require, for example, that an elector live in

 

[pknopp]

I'm just now reading.......unanimous decision. Now those who advocate for the end of the electoral college will have to do it the way the founders intended. A Constitutional Amendment.

Again, a unanimous decision.

Not necessarily. I don't read the opinions as saying states cannot pass laws apportioning their electoral votes by the popular vote in the state, or even nationally. Individual electors cannot just choose whom to vote for though.

Being a unanimous decision I doubt the court will allow any changes.

It's not a change. P9
Article II, §1’s appointments power gives the States far-reaching authority over presidential electors, absent someother constitutional constraint.4 As noted earlier, each State may appoint electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." Art. II, §1, cl. 2; see supra, at 2. This Court has described that clause as "conveying the broadest power of determination" over who becomes an elector. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 27 (1892).5 And the power to appoint an elector (in any manner) includespower to condition his appointment—that is, to say what the elector must do for the appointment to take effect. A State can require, for example, that an elector live in

Thanks.......interesting topic.

 

[Cassandro]

I think it would be an unconstitutional violation of its own citizens' voting rights for a state to apportion its electoral votes based on how the citizens of other states voted, just as it would be to elect its legislature on that basis.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I'd like to see the details. I was under the impression that the original intent of the system was for the electors to have the choice to vote for whomever they wanted, but that doesn't mean states don't have the power to compel them. I'm interested in reading both the majority decision and the dissent, if there is one.

No dissent when it is 9-0

 

[MisterBeale]

I think it would be an unconstitutional violation of its own citizens' voting rights for a state to apportion its electoral votes based on how the citizens of other states voted, just as it would be to elect its legislature on that basis.

Good point.

That is really, the key take away here.

 

[Sunsettommy]

From the article:

"The justices unanimously rejected the claim that electors have a right under the Constitution to defy their states and vote for the candidate of their choice.

The electoral college system, created by the Founding Fathers, has been criticized as being outdated and unfair to voters. In two of the past five presidential elections, the winner came in second in the national vote, but nonetheless won a combination of states that yielded more electoral votes.

Justice Elena Kagan said the Constitution gives states the power to appoint electors who in turn must abide by the state's rules.

"The Constitution’s text and the nation’s history both support allowing a state to enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee — and the state voters’ choice — for president," she said."

This means if a state chose Biden by popular vote the state MUST give him ALL of the electoral votes of that state.

No exceptions are allowed.

This is a GREAT decision!