The state's popular vote compact is dead

[bigrebnc1775]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

No, but in many states, they pledge to vote for the majority winner.
From Wiki:

State laws may impose a fine on an elector who fails to vote according to the statewide or district popular vote, force an elector to vote for the candidate they pledged to vote, or disqualify an elector who violates their pledge and provide a replacement elector. The states with laws that attempt to bind the votes of presidential electors are highlighted above in red.[1]

I know that North Carolina electors must vote how the state votes.

 

[OldLady]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

No, but in many states, they pledge to vote for the majority winner.
From Wiki:

State laws may impose a fine on an elector who fails to vote according to the statewide or district popular vote, force an elector to vote for the candidate they pledged to vote, or disqualify an elector who violates their pledge and provide a replacement elector. The states with laws that attempt to bind the votes of presidential electors are highlighted above in red.[1]

I know that North Carolina electors must vote how the state votes.

My state, too.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

No, but in many states, they pledge to vote for the majority winner.
From Wiki:

State laws may impose a fine on an elector who fails to vote according to the statewide or district popular vote, force an elector to vote for the candidate they pledged to vote, or disqualify an elector who violates their pledge and provide a replacement elector. The states with laws that attempt to bind the votes of presidential electors are highlighted above in red.[1]

I know that North Carolina electors must vote how the state votes.

My state, too.

Which is the way it should be.

 

[task0778]

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.

.

Each party submits a list of electors. I think the compact states will award the right to choose the states electors to the party based on the national vote rather than the states vote.

Colorado took it a step too far though, when their SoS tried to invalidate an elector's vote. "Faithless" electoral voters have existed for a very long time. Regardless of who picks the elector, according to this ruling the state cannot nullify that person's EC ballot. From the OP's link:

A U.S. appeals court in Denver said Electoral College members can vote for the presidential candidate of their choice and aren’t bound by the popular vote in their states.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the Colorado secretary of state violated the Constitution in 2016 when he removed an elector and nullified his vote when the elector refused to cast his ballot for Democrat Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote.

So, it's the same problem whether a state signed up for the Pact or not, whoever is appointed to be an elector can vote or whoever they want to. And have done so in the past, although not too often. The real question, which this ruling did not address, is who gets to appoint those electors? Can a state award the elector appointments to the party of a person who did not win the state's popular vote if that person was the national popular vote winner?

The Constitution doesn't really say much about that, right? BUT - the apportioning of 2 US Senators to each state was done to avoid the possibility of the more populous states from running roughshod over the others. They knew then that votes in a heavily populated state would seem to count less than a vote in a sparsely populated one. Such has always been the case and up until lately it didn't matter cuz the person who won the national popular vote was almost always the electoral college winner too. So, will the SCOTUS essentially dismantle the EC in favor of the national plurality? It's interesting to speculate on what that would mean for this country's future if that happened.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

.

Each party submits a list of electors. I think the compact states will award the right to choose the states electors to the party based on the national vote rather than the states vote.

Colorado took it a step too far though, when their SoS tried to invalidate an elector's vote. "Faithless" electoral voters have existed for a very long time. Regardless of who picks the elector, according to this ruling the state cannot nullify that person's EC ballot. From the OP's link:

A U.S. appeals court in Denver said Electoral College members can vote for the presidential candidate of their choice and aren’t bound by the popular vote in their states.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the Colorado secretary of state violated the Constitution in 2016 when he removed an elector and nullified his vote when the elector refused to cast his ballot for Democrat Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote.

So, it's the same problem whether a state signed up for the Pact or not, whoever is appointed to be an elector can vote or whoever they want to. And have done so in the past, although not too often. The real question, which this ruling did not address, is who gets to appoint those electors? Can a state award the elector appointments to the party of a person who did not win the state's popular vote if that person was the national popular vote winner?

The Constitution doesn't really say much about that, right? BUT - the apportioning of 2 US Senators to each state was done to avoid the possibility of the more populous states from running roughshod over the others. They knew then that votes in a heavily populated state would seem to count less than a vote in a sparsely populated one. Such has always been the case and up until lately it didn't matter cuz the person who won the national popular vote was almost always the electoral college winner too. So, will the SCOTUS essentially dismantle the EC in favor of the national plurality? It's interesting to speculate on what that would mean for this country's future if that happened.

Some states have laws that forbid an elector from voting the way they want to vote. They must vote how the state voted. Like my state of North Carolina.

 

[task0778]

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.

.

Each party submits a list of electors. I think the compact states will award the right to choose the states electors to the party based on the national vote rather than the states vote.

Colorado took it a step too far though, when their SoS tried to invalidate an elector's vote. "Faithless" electoral voters have existed for a very long time. Regardless of who picks the elector, according to this ruling the state cannot nullify that person's EC ballot. From the OP's link:

A U.S. appeals court in Denver said Electoral College members can vote for the presidential candidate of their choice and aren’t bound by the popular vote in their states.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the Colorado secretary of state violated the Constitution in 2016 when he removed an elector and nullified his vote when the elector refused to cast his ballot for Democrat Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote.

So, it's the same problem whether a state signed up for the Pact or not, whoever is appointed to be an elector can vote or whoever they want to. And have done so in the past, although not too often. The real question, which this ruling did not address, is who gets to appoint those electors? Can a state award the elector appointments to the party of a person who did not win the state's popular vote if that person was the national popular vote winner?

The Constitution doesn't really say much about that, right? BUT - the apportioning of 2 US Senators to each state was done to avoid the possibility of the more populous states from running roughshod over the others. They knew then that votes in a heavily populated state would seem to count less than a vote in a sparsely populated one. Such has always been the case and up until lately it didn't matter cuz the person who won the national popular vote was almost always the electoral college winner too. So, will the SCOTUS essentially dismantle the EC in favor of the national plurality? It's interesting to speculate on what that would mean for this country's future if that happened.

Some states have laws that forbid an elector from voting the way they want to vote. They must vote how the state voted. Like my state of North Carolina.

It would seem the 10th Court of Appeals has ruled that your state can't legally do that. My own sense is that we should not be appointing a group of electors who can vote for whoever they want to in total disregard to their state's vote count. If North Carolina votes for "X" in the popular vote, then IMHO that person gets the EC votes without the need for anyone appointed to do that for them. We'll see what the SCOTUS says about that.

 

[BlindBoo]

Can a state award the elector appointments to the party of a person who did not win the state's popular vote if that person was the national popular vote winner?

Isn't that the responsibility of the States legislature?

So, will the SCOTUS essentially dismantle the EC in favor of the national plurality?

The EC would still be intact. I don't think the SC, Congress, or the President has the authority to tell the states how to pick their electors.

I don't think it's a stable solution to electing the president by a national vote.

A Constitutional Amendment is needed. But we all know that ain't happening.....

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

No, but in many states, they pledge to vote for the majority winner.
From Wiki:

State laws may impose a fine on an elector who fails to vote according to the statewide or district popular vote, force an elector to vote for the candidate they pledged to vote, or disqualify an elector who violates their pledge and provide a replacement elector. The states with laws that attempt to bind the votes of presidential electors are highlighted above in red.[1]

I know that North Carolina electors must vote how the state votes.

My state, too.

Which is the way it should be.

But, the point being made is, if that is legal, why can't the state tell the electors they must do something else, like vote for the national popular vote winner?

The point is that the states cannot make rules for individual electors on how they must vote. They are independent.

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

No, but in many states, they pledge to vote for the majority winner.
From Wiki:

State laws may impose a fine on an elector who fails to vote according to the statewide or district popular vote, force an elector to vote for the candidate they pledged to vote, or disqualify an elector who violates their pledge and provide a replacement elector. The states with laws that attempt to bind the votes of presidential electors are highlighted above in red.[1]

I know that North Carolina electors must vote how the state votes.

My state, too.

Which is the way it should be.

But, the point being made is, if that is legal, why can't the state tell the electors they must do something else, like vote for the national popular vote winner?

The point is that the states cannot make rules for individual electors on how they must vote. They are independent.

.

It depends on state election laws. My state forbids it

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

.

Each party submits a list of electors. I think the compact states will award the right to choose the states electors to the party based on the national vote rather than the states vote.

Colorado took it a step too far though, when their SoS tried to invalidate an elector's vote. "Faithless" electoral voters have existed for a very long time. Regardless of who picks the elector, according to this ruling the state cannot nullify that person's EC ballot. From the OP's link:

A U.S. appeals court in Denver said Electoral College members can vote for the presidential candidate of their choice and aren’t bound by the popular vote in their states.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the Colorado secretary of state violated the Constitution in 2016 when he removed an elector and nullified his vote when the elector refused to cast his ballot for Democrat Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote.

So, it's the same problem whether a state signed up for the Pact or not, whoever is appointed to be an elector can vote or whoever they want to. And have done so in the past, although not too often. The real question, which this ruling did not address, is who gets to appoint those electors? Can a state award the elector appointments to the party of a person who did not win the state's popular vote if that person was the national popular vote winner?

The Constitution doesn't really say much about that, right? BUT - the apportioning of 2 US Senators to each state was done to avoid the possibility of the more populous states from running roughshod over the others. They knew then that votes in a heavily populated state would seem to count less than a vote in a sparsely populated one. Such has always been the case and up until lately it didn't matter cuz the person who won the national popular vote was almost always the electoral college winner too. So, will the SCOTUS essentially dismantle the EC in favor of the national plurality? It's interesting to speculate on what that would mean for this country's future if that happened.

Some states have laws that forbid an elector from voting the way they want to vote. They must vote how the state voted. Like my state of North Carolina.

It would seem the 10th Court of Appeals has ruled that your state can't legally do that. My own sense is that we should not be appointing a group of electors who can vote for whoever they want to in total disregard to their state's vote count. If North Carolina votes for "X" in the popular vote, then IMHO that person gets the EC votes without the need for anyone appointed to do that for them. We'll see what the SCOTUS says about that.

The 10th Amendment says it can. We've had our election laws for over one hundred years.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No, but in many states, they pledge to vote for the majority winner.
From Wiki:

State laws may impose a fine on an elector who fails to vote according to the statewide or district popular vote, force an elector to vote for the candidate they pledged to vote, or disqualify an elector who violates their pledge and provide a replacement elector. The states with laws that attempt to bind the votes of presidential electors are highlighted above in red.[1]

I know that North Carolina electors must vote how the state votes.

My state, too.

Which is the way it should be.

But, the point being made is, if that is legal, why can't the state tell the electors they must do something else, like vote for the national popular vote winner?

The point is that the states cannot make rules for individual electors on how they must vote. They are independent.

.

It depends on state election laws. My state forbids it

You state laws forbids the state from telling the electors how they must vote?

 

[task0778]

Can a state award the elector appointments to the party of a person who did not win the state's popular vote if that person was the national popular vote winner?

Isn't that the responsibility of the States legislature?

So, will the SCOTUS essentially dismantle the EC in favor of the national plurality?

The EC would still be intact. I don't think the SC, Congress, or the President has the authority to tell the states how to pick their electors.

I don't think it's a stable solution to electing the president by a national vote.

A Constitutional Amendment is needed. But we all know that ain't happening.....

In some states their legislature does determine who the electors are, but I believe in most states it's the party of the person who won the popular vote in that state.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Regardless of how the faithless elector rulings go, the NPVC violates Article 1 Section 10:1 of the constitution.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Uh huh.
Be honest: Your opinion here doesn't matter.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I know that North Carolina electors must vote how the state votes.

My state, too.

Which is the way it should be.

But, the point being made is, if that is legal, why can't the state tell the electors they must do something else, like vote for the national popular vote winner?

The point is that the states cannot make rules for individual electors on how they must vote. They are independent.

.

It depends on state election laws. My state forbids it

You state laws forbids the state from telling the electors how they must vote?

No, the state law tells the electors they must vote for whoever carried the state.

 

[task0778]

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

.

Each party submits a list of electors. I think the compact states will award the right to choose the states electors to the party based on the national vote rather than the states vote.

Colorado took it a step too far though, when their SoS tried to invalidate an elector's vote. "Faithless" electoral voters have existed for a very long time. Regardless of who picks the elector, according to this ruling the state cannot nullify that person's EC ballot. From the OP's link:

A U.S. appeals court in Denver said Electoral College members can vote for the presidential candidate of their choice and aren’t bound by the popular vote in their states.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the Colorado secretary of state violated the Constitution in 2016 when he removed an elector and nullified his vote when the elector refused to cast his ballot for Democrat Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote.

So, it's the same problem whether a state signed up for the Pact or not, whoever is appointed to be an elector can vote or whoever they want to. And have done so in the past, although not too often. The real question, which this ruling did not address, is who gets to appoint those electors? Can a state award the elector appointments to the party of a person who did not win the state's popular vote if that person was the national popular vote winner?

The Constitution doesn't really say much about that, right? BUT - the apportioning of 2 US Senators to each state was done to avoid the possibility of the more populous states from running roughshod over the others. They knew then that votes in a heavily populated state would seem to count less than a vote in a sparsely populated one. Such has always been the case and up until lately it didn't matter cuz the person who won the national popular vote was almost always the electoral college winner too. So, will the SCOTUS essentially dismantle the EC in favor of the national plurality? It's interesting to speculate on what that would mean for this country's future if that happened.

Some states have laws that forbid an elector from voting the way they want to vote. They must vote how the state voted. Like my state of North Carolina.

It would seem the 10th Court of Appeals has ruled that your state can't legally do that. My own sense is that we should not be appointing a group of electors who can vote for whoever they want to in total disregard to their state's vote count. If North Carolina votes for "X" in the popular vote, then IMHO that person gets the EC votes without the need for anyone appointed to do that for them. We'll see what the SCOTUS says about that.

The 10th Amendment says it can. We've had our election laws for over one hundred years.

"Some states have laws that forbid an elector from voting the way they want to vote."

The 10th Court of Appeals says that North Carolina can't do that. Essentially, it means that someone appointed to be an elector to the EC has the discretion to vote however they wish, regardless of state law. Right now, in NC and a half dozen or so other states, the faithless voter is deemed to have resigned his position if he/she doesn't vote as they are directed to. Until 2016, there haven't been any faithless voters in a state where this replacement law is in effect, so it's kinda been a moot point. But this latest Court ruling turns that upside down, the Court basically says that replacement is not an option.

This case and similar other ones are surely headed to the SCOTUS in the near future.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Each party submits a list of electors. I think the compact states will award the right to choose the states electors to the party based on the national vote rather than the states vote.

Colorado took it a step too far though, when their SoS tried to invalidate an elector's vote. "Faithless" electoral voters have existed for a very long time. Regardless of who picks the elector, according to this ruling the state cannot nullify that person's EC ballot. From the OP's link:

A U.S. appeals court in Denver said Electoral College members can vote for the presidential candidate of their choice and aren’t bound by the popular vote in their states.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the Colorado secretary of state violated the Constitution in 2016 when he removed an elector and nullified his vote when the elector refused to cast his ballot for Democrat Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote.

So, it's the same problem whether a state signed up for the Pact or not, whoever is appointed to be an elector can vote or whoever they want to. And have done so in the past, although not too often. The real question, which this ruling did not address, is who gets to appoint those electors? Can a state award the elector appointments to the party of a person who did not win the state's popular vote if that person was the national popular vote winner?

The Constitution doesn't really say much about that, right? BUT - the apportioning of 2 US Senators to each state was done to avoid the possibility of the more populous states from running roughshod over the others. They knew then that votes in a heavily populated state would seem to count less than a vote in a sparsely populated one. Such has always been the case and up until lately it didn't matter cuz the person who won the national popular vote was almost always the electoral college winner too. So, will the SCOTUS essentially dismantle the EC in favor of the national plurality? It's interesting to speculate on what that would mean for this country's future if that happened.

Some states have laws that forbid an elector from voting the way they want to vote. They must vote how the state voted. Like my state of North Carolina.

It would seem the 10th Court of Appeals has ruled that your state can't legally do that. My own sense is that we should not be appointing a group of electors who can vote for whoever they want to in total disregard to their state's vote count. If North Carolina votes for "X" in the popular vote, then IMHO that person gets the EC votes without the need for anyone appointed to do that for them. We'll see what the SCOTUS says about that.

The 10th Amendment says it can. We've had our election laws for over one hundred years.

"Some states have laws that forbid an elector from voting the way they want to vote."

The 10th Court of Appeals says that North Carolina can't do that. Essentially, it means that someone appointed to be an elector to the EC has the discretion to vote however they wish, regardless of state law. Right now, in NC and a half dozen or so other states, the faithless voter is deemed to have resigned his position if he/she doesn't vote as they are directed to. Until 2016, there haven't been any faithless voters in a state where this replacement law is in effect, so it's kinda been a moot point. But this latest Court ruling turns that upside down, the Court basically says that replacement is not an option.

This case and similar other ones are surely headed to the SCOTUS in the near future.

The 10th ruling has no bearing in North Carolina. The Tenth Amendment says otherwise.
North Carolina has always had this law 100 years

 

[Care4all]

The ruling is correct. The Electoral College is a federal institution. States have no power to dictate an elector's voting behavior.

Awesome... I think?

They should vote Their conscience as the founders intended, and the electors should be picked proportionately, by how the State popular vote comes in.... not via winner takes all..... fingers crossed, that will happen next.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The ruling is correct. The Electoral College is a federal institution. States have no power to dictate an elector's voting behavior.

Awesome... I think?

They should vote Their conscience as the founders intended, and the electors should be picked proportionately, by how the State popular vote comes in.... not via winner takes all..... fingers crossed, that will happen next.

OK great trump supporters in all 50 states for some reason were chosen has electors. How great is that?