The state's popular vote compact is dead

[pknopp]

This is a bad ruling and I hope it gets overturned.

When the people of a state cast their ballots for president they should with the knowledge that the electors for their state will abide by the election results.

Faithless elector: A court ruling just changed how we pick our president

And how did the liberals feel when John Roberts said that the tax on Obamacare was okay? Live by the men in black robes, die by the men in black robes. Bwaaahhhhaaaaaaaaa

I get called a "Liberal" all the time.......(mostly because people are unable to come up with anything else). I believed Roberts was wrong. He had no standing in determining something was a tax that expressly was laid out as not a tax.

Next?

 

[rightwinger]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

Expect another court to immediately rule the exact opposite. It will be a matter of days, not weeks.

.

We can only hope so

Electors should represent the will of the people

 

[rightwinger]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

Interesting. So they do not have to abide by the will of the state. A state could go 95% for one candidate and the EC folks from that state can vote for anyone they want.

Why bother having an election in each state then?

Leaves open for an elector to be bought
If not for cash, for political patronage

 

[Rustic]

Яepublicans couldn't even win the last one without help from Uncle Vlad.

Mueller report: Russia hacked state databases and voting machine companies

...and still no Russian connection

 

[NightFox]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

Excellent.... my plan to become a member of the Electoral College so I can sell my vote to the highest bidder is falling into place.

 

[Rustic]

Democrats are the biggest election cheaters since Xi. They can't win elections without cheating

The ruling is wrong.

It's not democrats who do all they can to prevent people from voting.

There is no credible evidence of any democrat cheating.

republicans did work with russians to win the 2016 election. republicans did use stollen documents in the 2016 election.

Na, not really
Everyone in the world had a right to see the Hildabeast emails...

 

[jc456]

Democrats are the biggest election cheaters since Xi. They can't win elections without cheating

The ruling is wrong.

It's not democrats who do all they can to prevent people from voting.

There is no credible evidence of any democrat cheating.

republicans did work with russians to win the 2016 election. republicans did use stollen documents in the 2016 election.

Oh, really? You have proof they did? If I recall correctly, the Mueller report found no collusion...

The mueller report said that they weren't looking for collusion. They were looking for conspiracy. They found that trump did work with the russians but it didn't rise to the level of conspiracy. Which I disagree. I believe that trump did conspire with the russians to win that election. He came out and said he would do it again.

And yes trump used stolen documents.

The hacked documents from the DNC and John Podesta. Those were stolen. It's illegal to accept stolen documents.

it's amazing the stupid that you just posted. truly!!! did you go to school for that talent?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This is a bad ruling and I hope it gets overturned.

When the people of a state cast their ballots for president they should with the knowledge that the electors for their state will abide by the election results.

Faithless elector: A court ruling just changed how we pick our president

The electoral college should as it normally has done vote the state popular vote.

But the court just ruled they do not have to.

Why have elections?

That does seem to be the question at hand. According to this court our presidential election is meaningless and seems to just be a ruse to placate the people.

Wait. How so? All this court said was that electors must be selected by the state and that a state's laws cannot dictate to individual electors the candidate for whom they will vote. It has always been that way since the last time the constitution was amended on the issue.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This is a bad ruling and I hope it gets overturned.

When the people of a state cast their ballots for president they should with the knowledge that the electors for their state will abide by the election results.

Faithless elector: A court ruling just changed how we pick our president

The electoral college should as it normally has done vote the state popular vote.

But the court just ruled they do not have to.

Agreed. They don't have to. They never have had to. That's why the never-Trumpers were using Hollywood leftists to plead with electors to NOT vote for Trump.

That ruling simply makes it unlawful for a state do force the individual electors to vote a specific way, like it has always been.

.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

This is a bad ruling and I hope it gets overturned.

When the people of a state cast their ballots for president they should with the knowledge that the electors for their state will abide by the election results.

Faithless elector: A court ruling just changed how we pick our president

The electoral college should as it normally has done vote the state popular vote.

But the court just ruled they do not have to.

Why have elections?

That does seem to be the question at hand. According to this court our presidential election is meaningless and seems to just be a ruse to placate the people.

Wait. How so? All this court said was that electors must be selected by the state and that a state's laws cannot dictate to individual electors the candidate for whom they will vote. It has always been that way since the last time the constitution was amended on the issue.

.

So, there is nothing to stop electors from ignoring the popular vote of the state.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

Excellent.... my plan to become a member of the Electoral College so I can sell my vote to the highest bidder is falling into place.

You already have it. The plan is in place.

Now you just need to be appointed as an elector, and get the word out.

I would be happy to act as an intermediary between you and the Koch Brothers/Soros/



.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The electoral college should as it normally has done vote the state popular vote.

But the court just ruled they do not have to.

Why have elections?

That does seem to be the question at hand. According to this court our presidential election is meaningless and seems to just be a ruse to placate the people.

Wait. How so? All this court said was that electors must be selected by the state and that a state's laws cannot dictate to individual electors the candidate for whom they will vote. It has always been that way since the last time the constitution was amended on the issue.

.

So, there is nothing to stop electors from ignoring the popular vote of the state.

Right. The compact was FORCING them to vote a specific way. This court simply shot that down and maintained the status quo.

.

 

[Dana7360]

Democrats are the biggest election cheaters since Xi. They can't win elections without cheating

The ruling is wrong.

It's not democrats who do all they can to prevent people from voting.

There is no credible evidence of any democrat cheating.

republicans did work with russians to win the 2016 election. republicans did use stollen documents in the 2016 election.

Oh, really? You have proof they did? If I recall correctly, the Mueller report found no collusion...

The mueller report said that they weren't looking for collusion. They were looking for conspiracy. They found that trump did work with the russians but it didn't rise to the level of conspiracy. Which I disagree. I believe that trump did conspire with the russians to win that election. He came out and said he would do it again.

And yes trump used stolen documents.

The hacked documents from the DNC and John Podesta. Those were stolen. It's illegal to accept stolen documents.

They did not possess stolen documents. They read documents, just as we all do, off the internet. SC rulings prove that documents published on the internet can be read by anybody. Look up Bartnicki v. Vopper ,532 U.S. 514 (2001)

I didn't say that those documents couldn't be read.

I said the truth. That those documents were stolen.

trump promoted them and told everyone to read them. They were stolen documents that were hacked from DNC and John Podesta's computers.

It's illegal to hack. It's illegal to have stolen documents.

It's not illegal to read them on line.

You may not have a problem with using stolen documents to win an election but I do. I'm sure you would have a problem with it if it was republican documents that were stolen and promoted by a democratic candidate for everyone to read them. I know I would be but I'm not a partisan hack like you.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Democrats are the biggest election cheaters since Xi. They can't win elections without cheating

The ruling is wrong.

It's not democrats who do all they can to prevent people from voting.

There is no credible evidence of any democrat cheating.

republicans did work with russians to win the 2016 election. republicans did use stollen documents in the 2016 election.

Oh, really? You have proof they did? If I recall correctly, the Mueller report found no collusion...

The mueller report said that they weren't looking for collusion. They were looking for conspiracy. They found that trump did work with the russians but it didn't rise to the level of conspiracy. Which I disagree. I believe that trump did conspire with the russians to win that election. He came out and said he would do it again.

And yes trump used stolen documents.

The hacked documents from the DNC and John Podesta. Those were stolen. It's illegal to accept stolen documents.

They did not possess stolen documents. They read documents, just as we all do, off the internet. SC rulings prove that documents published on the internet can be read by anybody. Look up Bartnicki v. Vopper ,532 U.S. 514 (2001)

I didn't say that those documents couldn't be read.

I said the truth. That those documents were stolen.

trump promoted them and told everyone to read them. They were stolen documents that were hacked from DNC and John Podesta's computers.

It's illegal to hack. It's illegal to have stolen documents.

It's not illegal to read them on line.

You may not have a problem with using stolen documents to win an election but I do. I'm sure you would have a problem with it if it was republican documents that were stolen and promoted by a democratic candidate for everyone to read them. I know I would be but I'm not a partisan hack like you.

Nothing was hacked. John Podesta voluntarily disclosed his password. If a Republican had done what Clinton had done it would have deserved disclosure.

 

[pknopp]

The ruling is wrong.

It's not democrats who do all they can to prevent people from voting.

There is no credible evidence of any democrat cheating.

republicans did work with russians to win the 2016 election. republicans did use stollen documents in the 2016 election.

Oh, really? You have proof they did? If I recall correctly, the Mueller report found no collusion...

The mueller report said that they weren't looking for collusion. They were looking for conspiracy. They found that trump did work with the russians but it didn't rise to the level of conspiracy. Which I disagree. I believe that trump did conspire with the russians to win that election. He came out and said he would do it again.

And yes trump used stolen documents.

The hacked documents from the DNC and John Podesta. Those were stolen. It's illegal to accept stolen documents.

They did not possess stolen documents. They read documents, just as we all do, off the internet. SC rulings prove that documents published on the internet can be read by anybody. Look up Bartnicki v. Vopper ,532 U.S. 514 (2001)

I didn't say that those documents couldn't be read.

I said the truth. That those documents were stolen.

trump promoted them and told everyone to read them. They were stolen documents that were hacked from DNC and John Podesta's computers.

It's illegal to hack. It's illegal to have stolen documents.

It's not illegal to read them on line.

You may not have a problem with using stolen documents to win an election but I do. I'm sure you would have a problem with it if it was republican documents that were stolen and promoted by a democratic candidate for everyone to read them. I know I would be but I'm not a partisan hack like you.

Nothing was hacked. John Podesta voluntarily disclosed his password. If a Republican had done what Clinton had done it would have deserved disclosure.

Clinton was so incompetent here that I wouldn't be surprised if it had been "hacked". It would have been easy for any amateur in a basement to have done so.

But as far as it making the headlines, no, that is not where it came from.

 

[bendog]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

The "compact" never affected a "faithless elector." Each subscribing state will still select electors who "pledge" to vote for the popular winner, and if some elector "lies" and votes another way, there's no recourse for the state other than to personally ostracize that faithless elector in future political situations, and of course he'll never find a dinner companion or threesome for golf who'll make him the fourth. Same as it ever was.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Democrats are the biggest election cheaters since Xi. They can't win elections without cheating

The ruling is wrong.

It's not democrats who do all they can to prevent people from voting.

There is no credible evidence of any democrat cheating.

republicans did work with russians to win the 2016 election. republicans did use stollen documents in the 2016 election.

Oh, really? You have proof they did? If I recall correctly, the Mueller report found no collusion...

The mueller report said that they weren't looking for collusion. They were looking for conspiracy. They found that trump did work with the russians but it didn't rise to the level of conspiracy. Which I disagree. I believe that trump did conspire with the russians to win that election. He came out and said he would do it again.

And yes trump used stolen documents.

The hacked documents from the DNC and John Podesta. Those were stolen. It's illegal to accept stolen documents.

Those documents would mean nothing, if Hillary wasn't a corrupt evil witch

The public had a right to know.


.

 

[Papageorgio]

This is a bad ruling and I hope it gets overturned.

When the people of a state cast their ballots for president they should with the knowledge that the electors for their state will abide by the election results.

Faithless elector: A court ruling just changed how we pick our president

Aren't they abiding by their state if they Electoral College of that state vote in favor of the person that won the election in that state? So say the state of Washington votes for Hillary Clinton, should not the votes go to Hillary and not the winner of the popular vote?

 

[Wyatt earp]

This is a bad ruling and I hope it gets overturned.

When the people of a state cast their ballots for president they should with the knowledge that the electors for their state will abide by the election results.

Faithless elector: A court ruling just changed how we pick our president

The electoral college should as it normally has done vote the state popular vote.

But the court just ruled they do not have to.

Why have elections?

That does seem to be the question at hand. According to this court our presidential election is meaningless and seems to just be a ruse to placate the people.

?

The court is going by the Constitution, the popular vote is meaningless.

 

[The Original Tree]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

As we said all along, it is Unconstitutional to Defraud The Voters of Your State, and Cast Electoral Votes for a Candidate that did not win your state.