24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 59,055
R
Redneck Offline OP
Campfire Kahuna
OP Offline
Campfire Kahuna
R
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 59,055
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...ectors-can-t-go-rogue-electoral-n1231394



WASHINGTON — The 538 people who cast the actual votes for president in December as part of the Electoral College are not free agents and must vote as the laws of their states direct, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The unanimous decision in the "faithless elector" case was a defeat for advocates of changing the Electoral College, who hoped a win would force a shift in the method of electing presidents toward a nationwide popular vote. But it was a win for state election officials who feared that empowering rogue electors would cause chaos.

Writing for the court, Justice Elena Kagan said the Constitution gives states far-reaching authority over choosing presidential electors. That includes the power to set conditions on an elector's appointment, "that is to say, what the elector must do for the appointment to take effect."

What's more, she wrote, "nothing in the Constitution expressly prohibits states from taking away president electors' voting discretion." The ruling aligns with "the trust of a nation that here, We the People rule," Kagan said.


In unanimous decision, Supreme Court rules 'faithless electors' not able to vote as they wish
JULY 6, 202002:08
The November general election is not actually a direct vote for the presidential candidates. Voters instead choose a slate of electors appointed in their states by the political parties. Those electors meet in December to cast their ballots, which are counted during a joint session of Congress in January.

The court's opinion said presidential electors must act as their states require, which in most of the nation means voting for the candidate who won the popular vote in their states. In Maine and Nebraska, presidential electors are guided by the votes of congressional districts.

If the court had ruled the other way, then individual electors who decided to vote as they wished in a close race could potentially have the power decide who wins.

Four "faithless electors" from Colorado and Washington state who did not conform to the popular vote in the 2016 election sued, claiming that states can regulate only how electors are chosen, not what comes later.

Harvard Law professor Larry Lessig, who advocates Electoral College reform, told the court that nothing in the Constitution gives states any authority to restrict how an elector can vote, because they act in a federal role when meeting as the Electoral College.

Instead of voting for Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote in Colorado, Micheal Baca cast his vote for John Kasich, the former Republican governor of Ohio. And in Washington state, where Clinton also won the popular vote, three of the state's 12 electors voted for Colin Powell, the former secretary of state.

Lessig said on Monday that he was pleaded with the timing of the court's decision, but not the result.

"When we launched these cases, we did it because, regardless of the outcome, it was critical to resolve this question before it created a constitutional crisis. We have achieved that," he said. "Obviously, we don't believe the court has interpreted the Constitution correctly. But we are happy that we have achieved our primary objective: This uncertainty has been removed. That is progress."

The Supreme Court ruled in 1952 that states do not violate the Constitution when they require electors to pledge that they will abide by the results of the popular vote. But the justices had never before said whether it is constitutional to enforce those pledges.

Lessig said he hoped the controversy would encourage more states to adopt a system in which they would assign all of their electors to the candidate who wins the nationwide popular vote for president.

More than a dozen states have signed an interstate agreement to make the change. It would take effect once the participating states represent at least 270 electoral votes, the minimum needed to be elected president.


Pete Williams
Pete Williams is an NBC News correspondent who covers the Justice Department and the Supreme Court, based in Washington.


Ex- USN (SS) '66-'69
Pro-Constitution.
LET'S GO BRANDON!!!
BP-B2

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,721
S
Campfire 'Bwana
Online Content
Campfire 'Bwana
S
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,721
How it should be.



A wise man is frequently humbled.

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 885
W
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
W
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 885
unanimous Is the key. This is a wonderful thing for our election process!

Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 19,434
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 19,434
So a big collective..... well DUH.


"Maybe we're all happy."

"Go to the sporting goods store. From the files, obtain form 4473. These will contain descriptions of weapons and lists of private ownership."
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,411
O
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
O
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,411
Unanimous, eh.

Good post.


The degree of my privacy is no business of yours.

What we've learned from history is that we haven't learned from it.
IC B2

Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 31,400
M
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
M
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 31,400
A good thing.


"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!"
--- Kid Rock 2022


Holocaust Deniers, the ultimate perverted dipchits: Bristoe, TheRealHawkeye, stophel, Ghostinthemachine, anyone else?
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 5,647
D
Campfire Tracker
Online Content
Campfire Tracker
D
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 5,647
Very good! Too bad there isn't an Electoral College for my state election for governor, wouldn't have the pos we have now if there was! Chicago and Peoria put this idiot in office, the rest of the state didn't vote for him!


It isn't what happens to you that defines you, it's what you DO about what happens to you that defines you!

NRA life member

Illinois State Rifle Association member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 13,245
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 13,245
Most people who have no knowledge of American history are unaware that at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, most of the States would never have ratified it without the stipulation of the Electoral College.

At that time, there were three States with large populations, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New York . With "popular vote" rule, the smaller States knew they would have no real say or power in government policies. They demanded the Electoral College for balance and equity. Otherwise they would never have ratified the Constitution.

Therefore, we are all represented in presidential elections ... thankfully.

Smart men, those Founding Fathers.

L.W.


"Always go straight forward, and if you meet the devil, cut him in two and go between the pieces." (William Sturgis, clipper ship captain, 1830s.)
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 69,068
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 69,068
Quote
The Supreme Court ruled in 1952 that states do not violate the Constitution when they require electors to pledge that they will abide by the results of the popular vote. But the justices had never before said whether it is constitutional to enforce those pledges.
But how about forcing them to vote according to the NATIONAL popular vote, regardless of how the state voted? That's the newest scheme to get around the EC.


“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
― George Orwell

It's not over when you lose. It's over when you quit.
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 9,677
H
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
H
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 9,677
Abolishing the EC will light the match that kicks off the next revolution. The patriots in flyover states will not stand for elections always being won by brainwashed parasites in a few big metropolitan areas whose votes have been bought by "free stuff" promises, no matter how phony they might be!


Ignorance can be fixed. Stupid is forever!
IC B3

Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 1,672
W
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
W
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by Rock Chuck
Quote
The Supreme Court ruled in 1952 that states do not violate the Constitution when they require electors to pledge that they will abide by the results of the popular vote. But the justices had never before said whether it is constitutional to enforce those pledges.
But how about forcing them to vote according to the NATIONAL popular vote, regardless of how the state voted? That's the newest scheme to get around the EC.


THIS!!! The big population states can still steal small state clout by ganging together to pass this.

"Lessig said he hoped the controversy would encourage more states to adopt a system in which they would assign all of their electors to the candidate who wins the nationwide popular vote for president.

More than a dozen states have signed an interstate agreement to make the change. It would take effect once the participating states represent at least 270 electoral votes, the minimum needed to be elected president."


TV has become nothing more than the Petri dish where this country grows its idiots.
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 44,416
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 44,416
From the article, this is the scary deal, notwithstanding the Electoral College, if this goes through America as we know it might be really screwed:

Quote
Lessig said he hoped the controversy would encourage more states to adopt a system in which they would assign all of their electors to the candidate who wins the nationwide popular vote for president.

More than a dozen states have signed an interstate agreement to make the change. It would take effect once the participating states represent at least 270 electoral votes, the minimum needed to be elected president
(my bold)

In other words, as I understand it, the votes of certain folks will be overwritten by the popular vote. The fact they assigned Electors to another candidate will make no difference whatsoever.


The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men.
In it is contentment
In it is death and all you seek
(Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)

member of the cabal of dysfunctional squirrels?
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 407
B
Campfire Member
Offline
Campfire Member
B
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 407
Yup, a good thing. 196 Electoral votes and counting...

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,174
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,174
Originally Posted by Valsdad
From the article, this is the scary deal, notwithstanding the Electoral College, if this goes through America as we know it might be really screwed:

Quote
Lessig said he hoped the controversy would encourage more states to adopt a system in which they would assign all of their electors to the candidate who wins the nationwide popular vote for president.

More than a dozen states have signed an interstate agreement to make the change. It would take effect once the participating states represent at least 270 electoral votes, the minimum needed to be elected president
(my bold)

In other words, as I understand it, the votes of certain folks will be overwritten by the popular vote. The fact they assigned Electors to another candidate will make no difference whatsoever.


That will fall apart the next time a Republican wins the popular vote. Imagine the outcry in the urban areas if their votes went to "the wrong guy"!!

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 130,940
T
Campfire Sage
Offline
Campfire Sage
T
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 130,940
Good news.

Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,062
B
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
B
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,062

All this does is say "you have to follow the law when you agreed by accepting the appointment" it says nothing about what the state can say is the law. ANY state can say "electoral votes from this state go to the nationwide popular vote". Essentially some states are trying this, but in a spineless way by saying "goes into effect when 270 electoral join". NOBODY is going to be that final state. Until then states look like they are taking a stand when they aren't.

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 44,416
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 44,416
Originally Posted by Brazos
Originally Posted by Valsdad
From the article, this is the scary deal, notwithstanding the Electoral College, if this goes through America as we know it might be really screwed:

Quote
Lessig said he hoped the controversy would encourage more states to adopt a system in which they would assign all of their electors to the candidate who wins the nationwide popular vote for president.

More than a dozen states have signed an interstate agreement to make the change. It would take effect once the participating states represent at least 270 electoral votes, the minimum needed to be elected president
(my bold)

In other words, as I understand it, the votes of certain folks will be overwritten by the popular vote. The fact they assigned Electors to another candidate will make no difference whatsoever.


That will fall apart the next time a Republican wins the popular vote. Imagine the outcry in the urban areas if their votes went to "the wrong guy"!!


Well, sure.

But according to a few sources here, only one Republican candidate since 1988 has won the popular vote. Not very good odds

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffsb&q=last+republican+to+win+the+popular+vote&ia=news


The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men.
In it is contentment
In it is death and all you seek
(Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)

member of the cabal of dysfunctional squirrels?
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 40,179
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 40,179
Originally Posted by benquick
Yup, a good thing. 196 Electoral votes and counting...



Don't forget to dig up the dead.


Son of a liberal: " What did you do in the War On Terror, Daddy?"

Liberal father: " I fought the Americans, along with all the other liberals."

MOLON LABE





Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 40,179
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 40,179


Son of a liberal: " What did you do in the War On Terror, Daddy?"

Liberal father: " I fought the Americans, along with all the other liberals."

MOLON LABE






Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
YB23

Who's Online Now
689 members (12344mag, 160user, 12308300, 1234, 163bc, 06hunter59, 71 invisible), 2,704 guests, and 1,263 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,187,617
Posts18,398,496
Members73,817
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 







Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.136s Queries: 14 (0.004s) Memory: 0.8886 MB (Peak: 1.0280 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-03-28 14:41:18 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS