Supreme Court to hear 'faithless elector' case ahead of 2020 presidential election

[Franklin Pierce]

The Supreme Court said Friday it will hear a case over whether presidential electors have to vote in accordance with their states’ popular vote in the Electoral College.

The court said it would take up the case of Chiafalo v. State of Washington, where three so-called "faithless electors" who were fined after voting in 2016 for Colin Powell are challenging whether a state can bind an elector to select the state's popular vote winner.

In the faithless elector case, advocates for the court's intervention say the issue needs urgent resolution in an era of intense political polarization and the prospect of a razor-thin margin in a presidential election, although so-called faithless electors have been a footnote so far in American history.

The justices will hear arguments in April and should issue a decision by late June.

Supreme Court to hear 'faithless elector' case ahead of 2020 presidential election

 

[evillawyer]

The electoral college makes zero sense if the electors are bound by their state's vote.

 

[C-south]

The electoral college makes zero sense if the electors are bound by their state's vote.

And our votes are useless if they’re not.

 

[GAVol]

The electoral college makes zero sense if the electors are bound by their state's vote.

I'd say it's the opposite.

 

[hog88]

The electoral college makes zero sense if the electors are bound by their state's vote.

This is one subject where we agree.

 

[hog88]

Everyone needs to understand that when you "vote for President" you're really not. You are voting for party electors not the candidate themselves.

 

[1972 Grad]

Everyone needs to understand that when you "vote for President" you're really not. You are voting for party electors not the candidate themselves.

Tell Luther, LG, Septic, Huff, and the gang that they aren't really voting for Trump himself , and maybe they will come around.

 

[evillawyer]

I'd say it's the opposite.

Why have a physical convening of flesh and blood persons to take a vote if those voters hands are tied by the state's vote? It becomes a pure formality if that's all it is--and that's certainly not what the founders envisioned. They didn't trust us plebes to get it right so they created a second layer vote that could reject the vote of the people if they thought the people elected a goon.

 

[1972 Grad]

Why have a physical convening of flesh and blood persons to take a vote if those voters hands are tied by the state's vote? It becomes a pure formality if that's all it is--and that's certainly not what the founders envisioned. They didn't trust us plebes to get it right so they created a second layer vote that could reject the vote of the people if they thought the people elected a goon.

I'm sure that they wanted a handful of individuals to override the wishes of millions of voters.

 

[hog88]

I'm sure that they wanted a handful of individuals to override the wishes of millions of voters.

Yep, they did. That's one of the reasons we didn't directly elect Senators until the 17th amendment (needs to be repealed).

 

[GAVol]

Why have a physical convening of flesh and blood persons to take a vote if those voters hands are tied by the state's vote? It becomes a pure formality if that's all it is--and that's certainly not what the founders envisioned. They didn't trust us plebes to get it right so they created a second layer vote that could reject the vote of the people if they thought the people elected a goon.

They were indeed trying to discourage mob rule and wanted to ensure that each state was represented. Otherwise, back in the day, whoever won NYC, Boston and Philadelphia would've won every election.

Funny how this didn't seem to be an issue until Democrats lurched left and sold out to the large population centers.

 

[hog88]

They were indeed trying to discourage mob rule and wanted to ensure that each state was represented. Otherwise, back in the day, whoever won NYC, Boston and Philadelphia would've won every election.

Funny how this didn't seem to be an issue until Democrats lurched left and sold out to the large population centers.

They also wanted a second line of defense between someone wholly unfit for the office and the office.

 

[AM64]

Everyone needs to understand that when you "vote for President" you're really not. You are voting for party electors not the candidate themselves.

The electors are affiliated with a candidate's name on the ballot. You have every right to expect the elector to cast his/her vote for the affiliated candidate. Otherwise the voter should have a choice of an alternate elector who will vote for the affiliated candidate if another won't promise to do so. You can pretty much bet that voters know nothing about electors. When I check a box, I damn well expect that elector to vote for my presidential choice; I'm not selecting someone about whom I know nothing to vote his or her conscience in my stead.

 

[C-south]

They also wanted a second line of defense between someone wholly unfit for the office and the office.

Like impeachment, nominating from a multitude of candidates, and other checks and balances?

 

[C-south]

The electors are affiliated with a candidate's name on the ballot. You have every right to expect the elector to cast his/her vote for the affiliated candidate. Otherwise the voter should have a choice of an alternate elector who will vote for the affiliated candidate if another won't promise to do so. You can pretty much bet that voters know nothing about electors. When I check a box, I damn well expect that elector to vote for my presidential choice; I'm not selecting someone about whom I know nothing to vote his or her conscience in my stead.

Exactly. Who’s to say an elector or multiple electors aren’t corrupt or inept?

 

[LouderVol]

didnt this already get ruled on in Colorado? Seems like it was ruled he could vote for whoever. thats how the system works.

whats funny is how the system is flipped. it was set up because they figured people wouldnt know what the president stood on, so instead vote for this elector you can reasonably know. now its the opposite, you vote for a president you know too much about by actually electing someone you know nothing about. ironic.

 

[hog88]

The electors are affiliated with a candidate's name on the ballot. You have every right to expect the elector to cast his/her vote for the affiliated candidate. Otherwise the voter should have a choice of an alternate elector who will vote for the affiliated candidate if another won't promise to do so. You can pretty much bet that voters know nothing about electors. When I check a box, I damn well expect that elector to vote for my presidential choice; I'm not selecting someone about whom I know nothing to vote his or her conscience in my stead.

the electors are affiliated with a particular candidate because that candidate is the party nominee that put the electors name in the ballot.

 

[LouderVol]

the electors are affiliated with a particular candidate because that candidate is the party nominee that put the electors name in the ballot.

which is why we need to get rid of parties. as a whole it doesn't make sense if you corrupt the pieces. got to go back to what it was.

 

[LouderVol]

didnt this already get ruled on in Colorado? Seems like it was ruled he could vote for whoever. thats how the system works.

whats funny is how the system is flipped. it was set up because they figured people wouldnt know what the president stood on, so instead vote for this elector you can reasonably know. now its the opposite, you vote for a president you know too much about by actually electing someone you know nothing about. ironic.

didn't see where the SC had ruled on Colorado just yet. but back in 2017 federal judges said they could vote for whoever.

Colorado electors don't have to vote for who wins popular vote, court finds

 

[vols40]

The electoral college makes zero sense if the electors are bound by their state's vote.

Are you drunk? The electoral college is what gives less populated states a fair say in the election. Makes politicions campaign in more states. If the electoral college is abolished the Democrats will just campaign in the small amount of states that get them over 270. What if the military only defended the country to the tune of how the rank and file feel politically? How about this all the states who voted for crooked Hillary and the Scooby van can form their own country. They can be called the Blue states of America. And to show you there are no hard feelings the red States will take all the guns you confiscate free of charge and we will give you all the illegal immigrants.

 

[vols40]

which is why we need to get rid of parties. as a whole it doesn't make sense if you corrupt the pieces. got to go back to what it was.

So we should do like Israel and have 2 or 3 elections until everyone gets along or at least a governing majority?

It's easy pick a side. If your side nominates someone who you don't like tough crap take the primaries more seriously. Voting is a responsibility and but just something trendy to do every 4 years because you are by law allowed to get off work early.

 

[evillawyer]

Are you drunk? The electoral college is what gives less populated states a fair say in the election. Makes politicions campaign in more states. If the electoral college is abolished the Democrats will just campaign in the small amount of states that get them over 270. What if the military only defended the country to the tune of how the rank and file feel politically? How about this all the states who voted for crooked Hillary and the Scooby van can form their own country. They can be called the Blue states of America. And to show you there are no hard feelings the red States will take all the guns you confiscate free of charge and we will give you all the illegal immigrants.

Read it my brother. Knowledge is your friend

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68

 

[1972 Grad]

So we should do like Israel and have 2 or 3 elections until everyone gets along or at least a governing majority?

It's easy pick a side. If your side nominates someone who you don't like tough crap take the primaries more seriously. Voting is a responsibility and but just something trendy to do every 4 years because you are by law allowed to get off work early.

I think that we should go by the enumerated powers in the Constitution and abide by the 10th Amendment, and leave any power not expressly given to the federal government be decided by the people or the state. That leaves things like abortion and education to each state because they aren't in the Constitution.

That way, if you don't like how your state decides on some issues, you can move to another state. I think that people would be happier overall, and there would be less division in each state.

 

[AM64]

the electors are affiliated with a particular candidate because that candidate is the party nominee that put the electors name in the ballot.

Yes, the party made it's choice and the elector supposedly "belongs" to that party. Therefore, the voter has every right to expect the elector to abide by the party's choice ... the one the voter selected on the ballot. I only see one way that this can go; the elector is faithful, or the elector defrauded the voters and should be punished. Otherwise it's all a sham.

 

[C-south]

Read it my brother. Knowledge is your friend

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68

I only use twitter for reliable information.