- Joined
- Apr 29, 2012
- Messages
- 17,873
- Reaction score
- 8,364
- Location
- On an island. Not that one!
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Electoral College Members Can Defy Voters’ Wishes, Court Rules
Aug. 22, 2019
In a ruling that kicks at the foundation of how America chooses presidents, a federal appeals court on Tuesday said members of the Electoral College, who cast the actual votes for president, may choose whomever they please regardless of a state’s popular vote.
The ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver said Colorado was out of bounds in 2016 when it canceled the vote of a so-called faithless elector named Michael Baca. Mr. Baca, a Democrat, wrote in the name of John Kasich, a Republican who was Ohio’s governor at the time, even though Hillary Clinton carried Colorado, earning its nine electoral votes. The secretary of state replaced Mr. Baca with another elector who then voted for Mrs. Clinton.
“The text of the Constitution makes clear that states do not have the constitutional authority to interfere with presidential electors who exercise their constitutional right to vote for the president and vice president candidates of their choice,” the court majority wrote in a split ruling by a three-judge panel.
America will be a republic in which a limited number of citizens have the privilege of choosing a president.
That has always been true. From the beginning.
The electors choose the President.
Each state is assigned a certain number of electors.
Each state legislature determines how the electors are chosen. For decades, state legislatures chose them directly.
The electors have never been bound by anything but their own devices and could vote as they wished. Which, of course, became necessary when multiple ballots were required in order for a candidate to achieve a majority.
At no point has it ever been a right of the people to choose the President.
There is absolutely nothing new about any of this, but you're acting as though there is.
This NYTimes article is from August of this year. While reading more about the case, I found that only 15 of the states have laws requiring their electors to vote as the popular vote. This goes back to the days of the founding of the nation when the Founders, all members of the educated elite class, thought that choosing electors of the same class could prevent the hoi-polloi from choosing some disreputable riff-raff as president.
If you can't read the NYTimes article, try this link -- Colorado’s presidential electors don’t have to vote for candidate who wins the state, federal appeals court rules
The Denver Post, Oct 16, 2019 -- Colorado seeks “urgent” decision from Supreme Court on faithless electors
IF the Supreme Court refuses Colorado's appeal or IF the Supreme Court takes the case and rules that the "original intent" of the Founders allowed those chosen as electors during a presidential election to 1) Vote as that individual wants to vote and/or 2) State legislatures in choosing the electors for their state ensure that said individuals chosen promise to vote as the legislature demands regardless of the popular vote, America will be a republic in which a limited number of citizens have the privilege of choosing a president.
Your argument is precisely why the state of Colorado is filing an appeal with the SCOTUS.
At this time, 15 states have laws on the books saying electors must vote as the popular vote goes. There have been very few instances in which electors went against the popular vote in their state but the possibility is there. The problem in 2020 could see Republican-controlled state legislatures requiring all of their electors vote for Trump regardless of the popular vote count.
Maine and Nebraska have laws that say the electors shall vote by the popular vote in each district within the state. Maine has had this ruling since 1972 and Nebraska since 1996. Electors are awarded to each state based on the number of House seats plus the number of Senate seats. In 2016, Maine's four electoral votes were divided with 3 for Clinton and 1 for Trump. In In 2008, Nebraska gave four votes to John McCain and one to Barack Obama.
That has always been true. From the beginning.
The electors choose the President.
Each state is assigned a certain number of electors.
Each state legislature determines how the electors are chosen. For decades, state legislatures chose them directly.
The electors have never been bound by anything but their own devices and could vote as they wished. Which, of course, became necessary when multiple ballots were required in order for a candidate to achieve a majority.
At no point has it ever been a right of the people to choose the President.
There is absolutely nothing new about any of this, but you're acting as though there is.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The Compact ensures that every vote, in every state, will matter in every presidential election. The Compact is a state-based approach that preserves the Electoral College, state control of elections, and the power of the states to control how the President is elected.
The National Popular Vote bill has been enacted by 16 jurisdictions possessing 196 electoral votes, including 4 small states (DE, HI, RI, VT), 8 medium-sized states (CO, CT, MD, MA, NJ, NM, OR, WA), 3 big states (CA, IL, NY), and the District Of Columbia. The bill will take effect when enacted by states with 74 more electoral votes. The bill has passed at least one chamber in 8 additional states with 75 more electoral votes (AR, AZ, ME, MI, MN, NC, NV, OK). A total of 3,408 state legislators from all 50 states have endorsed it.
The Constitution gives the States complete control of how they choose electors. No other democracy uses the outdated practice of electoral votes. The current system makes a few "swing" States the sole determiners of the election. It should go. Then candidates will campaign in all States equally.
What is new is this.....
The days of a few "swing states" determining our election are numbered.
Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote | National Popular Vote
No, they won't. They will pay attention to the large population centers only. There will be no reason to visit small, low-population states.
There are always reasons to not visit one state or other. Why should not visiting Wyoming because it's not got a lot of people be worse than not visiting California because it's reliably Democratic?
Why should the votes of Wyoming citizens count more per capita than the votes of California citizens?
There's nothing about that which is relevant to anything I said.
And if you're really worried about the people of a state getting a say who becomes President, you'd recognize that this is a great way to take the vote entirely away from those people if they vote differently from the "national popular vote."
That has always been true. From the beginning.
The electors choose the President.
Each state is assigned a certain number of electors.
Each state legislature determines how the electors are chosen. For decades, state legislatures chose them directly.
The electors have never been bound by anything but their own devices and could vote as they wished. Which, of course, became necessary when multiple ballots were required in order for a candidate to achieve a majority.
At no point has it ever been a right of the people to choose the President.
There is absolutely nothing new about any of this, but you're acting as though there is.
There's nothing about that which is relevant to anything I said.
And if you're really worried about the people of a state getting a say who becomes President, you'd recognize that this is a great way to take the vote entirely away from those people if they vote differently from the "national popular vote."
Everyone no matter the state, rural or urban, small city or large, north or south, has the identical "say" under a national popular vote.
Great. I was referring to the scheme igunaman referenced in his post, which is not a "national popular vote." Read.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes across all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
I did - will quote from the link:
So your point is it's not a national popular vote just a scheme in which everyone's votes count identically TO a national vote. OK, distinction granted!
No, my point is that if the voters of a state which is part of this compact votes for a candidate who loses the "national popular vote," the voters of that state will be disregarded and the electoral votes will go a candidate that state didn't vote for. That is far more of a "disenfranchisement" than current practices for the electoral system could ever be.
Now, it would be constitutionally permissible, maybe, depending on exactly how it's set up (a state can only appoint electors, not specifically who the electors will vote for), but for all the supposed concerns about "disenfranchisement" and "every vote counting," it would disastrous in practice and probably politically unsustainable. The first time a state legislature disregarded the majority of its voters, they'd probably find themselves out of office at the very next election and the whole scheme scrapped.
A study by FairVote reported that the 2004 candidates devoted three quarters of their peak season campaign resources to just five states, while the other 45 states received very little attention. The report also stated that 18 states received no candidate visits and no TV advertising.[8] This means that swing state issues receive more attention, while issues important to other states are largely ignored.[9][10][11]
There's nothing about that which is relevant to anything I said.
And if you're really worried about the people of a state getting a say who becomes President, you'd recognize that this is a great way to take the vote entirely away from those people if they vote differently from the "national popular vote."
What is new is this.....
The days of a few "swing states" determining our election are numbered.
Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote | National Popular Vote
LOL Now most Americans do not have their votes count. The President is leader of all 50 States and all votes should count equally instead of just the voters in a few swing States deciding the election. Why should my vote in Florida be worth so much more than one in NY or CA?
No, my point is that if the voters of a state which is part of this compact votes for a candidate who loses the "national popular vote," the voters of that state will be disregarded and the electoral votes will go a candidate that state didn't vote for. That is far more of a "disenfranchisement" than current practices for the electoral system could ever be.
Now, it would be constitutionally permissible, maybe, depending on exactly how it's set up (a state can only appoint electors, not specifically who the electors will vote for), but for all the supposed concerns about "disenfranchisement" and "every vote counting," it would disastrous in practice and probably politically unsustainable. The first time a state legislature disregarded the majority of its voters, they'd probably find themselves out of office at the very next election and the whole scheme scrapped.
This NYTimes article is from August of this year. While reading more about the case, I found that only 15 of the states have laws requiring their electors to vote as the popular vote. This goes back to the days of the founding of the nation when the Founders, all members of the educated elite class, thought that choosing electors of the same class could prevent the hoi-polloi from choosing some disreputable riff-raff as president.
If you can't read the NYTimes article, try this link -- Colorado’s presidential electors don’t have to vote for candidate who wins the state, federal appeals court rules
The Denver Post, Oct 16, 2019 -- Colorado seeks “urgent” decision from Supreme Court on faithless electors
IF the Supreme Court refuses Colorado's appeal or IF the Supreme Court takes the case and rules that the "original intent" of the Founders allowed those chosen as electors during a presidential election to 1) Vote as that individual wants to vote and/or 2) State legislatures in choosing the electors for their state ensure that said individuals chosen promise to vote as the legislature demands regardless of the popular vote, America will be a republic in which a limited number of citizens have the privilege of choosing a president.
That's ludicrous argument. The Presidential election is not a State election it is a national one.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?