Supreme Court rules presidential electors must back their state’s popular vote winner

DoD1776

DoD1776

NYGF's own Whippersnapper !
U.S. Military
Messages
5,456
Reaction score
5,171
Location
NYistan
Is this good or bad!?

nypost.com

Supreme Court rules presidential electors must back their state’s popular vote winner

The ruling, just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind their share of the 538 electors to vote for the state…
nypost.com nypost.com

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that states can require presidential electors to back their states’ popular vote winner in the Electoral College.

The ruling, just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind their share of the 538 electors to vote for the states’ popular-vote winner.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court that a state may instruct “electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens. That direction accords with the Constitution — as well as with the trust of a Nation that here, We the People rule.”
 
Grimscale

Grimscale

.338 Win Mag
Messages
8,560
Reaction score
16,799
Location
Rochester
My question is:

If the State electors can/must back the State popular vote, does that eliminate States whose electors are split between parties based on regional voting?
Are there ever situations where only some of the State electors vote for a particular candidate based on the percentage of voters who chose that candidate?
 
B

Benny

.38 Special
Messages
36
Reaction score
36
Location
Ny
Grimscale said:
My question is:

If the State electors can/must back the State popular vote, does that eliminate States whose electors are split between parties based on regional voting?
Are there ever situations where only some of the State electors vote for a particular candidate based on the percentage of voters who chose that candidate?
Click to expand...
Maine and Nebraska are the only ones that do. Everyone else is winner takes all
 
dsdmmat

dsdmmat

Donut Master
Moderator
Messages
11,686
Reaction score
26,732
Location
Alpha Quadrant, Sector 001
Grimscale said:
My question is:

If the State electors can/must back the State popular vote, does that eliminate States whose electors are split between parties based on regional voting?
Are there ever situations where only some of the State electors vote for a particular candidate based on the percentage of voters who chose that candidate?
Click to expand...
No the states that split their vote along popular vote percentage are not effected that is codified in their election law. This was about rogue electors voting the way they want to instead of by the desires of the people.

What will be interesting to see is if it applies to the states who pledge to have their electoral college vote go to the nation wide popular vote winner. Once those states who have joined the pact get to 270, the presidency will be determined by them and them alone.
 
Grimscale

Grimscale

.338 Win Mag
Messages
8,560
Reaction score
16,799
Location
Rochester
dsdmmat said:
What will be interesting to see is if it applies to the states who pledge to have their electoral college vote go to the nation wide popular vote winner.
Click to expand...

didn't this ruling effectively cancel that out? it is quite possible for the National popular vote to go one way and the State popular vote go the other.
 
dsdmmat

dsdmmat

Donut Master
Moderator
Messages
11,686
Reaction score
26,732
Location
Alpha Quadrant, Sector 001
Grimscale said:
didn't this ruling effectively cancel that out? it is quite possible for the National popular vote to go one way and the State popular vote go the other.
Click to expand...
Depends upon how the states election law is written. This ruling was about faithless voters in the electoral college. Not underhanded state governorships and law making bodies.
 
Paxal

Paxal

.223 Rem
Messages
1,389
Reaction score
1,734
Location
Somewhere in Utah
Doesn’t this basically nullify the electoral college? The point of it was, I think, to supply another level of security from “mob rule.” They have now created a standard under which the electoral college can not, if needed, go against the will of the mob.
 
B

BuffNiag

6.5 Creedmoor
Messages
1,992
Reaction score
3,055
Location
NY
Paxal said:
Doesn’t this basically nullify the electoral college? The point of it was, I think, to supply another level of security from “mob rule.” They have now created a standard under which the electoral college can not, if needed, go against the will of the mob.
Click to expand...

Under what circumstances should the electors vote against the popular vote?

If the electoral college were abolished, it’s a guarantee of Dem candidates for eternity. Lower population states tend to be red and have a disproportionately higher number of electors. Without them, larger population states would dominate the elections.


49A97034-5015-4272-8887-B834E46628FB.png
 
Chevusa

Chevusa

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,718
Reaction score
7,645
Location
Erie
This all started in 2016 when state electors went on record to say they wouldn't vote for Trump, even if he won the state. They threatened to go rogue. I believe they are allowed to do it technically but it is very unethical and undermines We The People.
 
spat

spat

.950 JDJ
Messages
31,939
Reaction score
67,713
Location
Formerly Geneseo, NY. Now free in AZ
Grimscale said:
didn't this ruling effectively cancel that out? it is quite possible for the National popular vote to go one way and the State popular vote go the other.
Click to expand...
The way I read this ruling the state *can* force the electors to vote the way they pledged when nominated.

That is all.

Remember, the public is just voting for electors not presidential candidates. That "Trump" or "Biden" line on the ballot really just says "an elector who promised to vote for...."

This just says that if the elector got on the public ballot by pledging to vote for X, he actually has to vote for X when the electoral vote happens.

It doesn't say anything about how the actual electors are chosen, just that they can't go back on the promise they made when nominated.
 
Paxal

Paxal

.223 Rem
Messages
1,389
Reaction score
1,734
Location
Somewhere in Utah
BuffNiag said:
Under what circumstances should the electors vote against the popular vote?

If the electoral college were abolished, it’s a guarantee of Dem candidates for eternity. Lower population states tend to be red and have a disproportionately higher number of electors. Without them, larger population states would dominate the elections.


View attachment 78567
Click to expand...
Agreed! You supported my point. The electors are there to protect against a fraudulent outcome, or candidate. As an example: suppose Biden got elected, due to his mental imcapacity being hidden from the populace through media manipulation and subversion of the truth regarding his fitness for office. Just for a kicker, suppose he was also a communist sympathizer. Just suppose that were to happen. In theory, the electors, who theoretically, know the truth about him, could cast votes against him and keep him from office. If they are bound to the popular vote then they do not have that ability, and the mob wins.
 
pjzwtl

pjzwtl

.308 Win
Messages
4,151
Reaction score
8,913
Location
Sullivan County
spat said:
The way I read this ruling the state *can* force the electors to vote the way they pledged when nominated.

That is all.

Remember, the public is just voting for electors not presidential candidates. That "Trump" or "Biden" line on the ballot really just says "an elector who promised to vote for...."

This just says that if the elector got on the public ballot by pledging to vote for X, he actually has to vote for X when the electoral vote happens.

It doesn't say anything about how the actual electors are chosen, just that they can't go back on the promise they made when nominated.
Click to expand...
Yup the thread title said it all
 
Defilade

Defilade

.700 Nitro Express
Messages
28,000
Reaction score
39,337
Location
Elsewhere
What are Libs going to say when the Popular vote destroys Bidens. Cause that is going to happen.:D
 
Saltwater60

Saltwater60

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
38,446
Reaction score
42,830
Location
Western NY
dsdmmat said:
No the states that split their vote along popular vote percentage are not effected that is codified in their election law. This was about rogue electors voting the way they want to instead of by the desires of the people.

What will be interesting to see is if it applies to the states who pledge to have their electoral college vote go to the nation wide popular vote winner. Once those states who have joined the pact get to 270, the presidency will be determined by them and them alone.
Click to expand...
What happens if and when they change these state laws??
 
CaseHardened

CaseHardened

.450/400 Nitro Ex
U.S. Military
Messages
12,125
Reaction score
12,272
Location
Danvers, MA
DoD1776 said:
Is this good or bad!?
Click to expand...
DoD1776 said:
nypost.com

Supreme Court rules presidential electors must back their state’s popular vote winner

The ruling, just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind their share of the 538 electors to vote for the state…
nypost.com nypost.com

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that states can require presidential electors to back their states’ popular vote winner in the Electoral College.

The ruling, just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind their share of the 538 electors to vote for the states’ popular-vote winner.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court that a state may instruct “electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens. That direction accords with the Constitution — as well as with the trust of a Nation that here, We the People rule.”
Click to expand...

Very, Very GOOD.
 
CaseHardened

CaseHardened

.450/400 Nitro Ex
U.S. Military
Messages
12,125
Reaction score
12,272
Location
Danvers, MA
Want to solve our election crisis ?

Voting age 21.

Only BIOLOGICAL MEN of every race or color or culture.

They should also be eligible for the DRAFT.

Never happen.

Ok...

21, in person/one day voting, and NO Policitcal affiliation allowed to be displayed on the ballot.
 
spat

spat

.950 JDJ
Messages
31,939
Reaction score
67,713
Location
Formerly Geneseo, NY. Now free in AZ
DoD1776 said:
Is this good or bad!?

nypost.com

Supreme Court rules presidential electors must back their state’s popular vote winner

The ruling, just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind their share of the 538 electors to vote for the state…
nypost.com nypost.com

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that states can require presidential electors to back their states’ popular vote winner in the Electoral College.

The ruling, just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind their share of the 538 electors to vote for the states’ popular-vote winner.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court that a state may instruct “electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens. That direction accords with the Constitution — as well as with the trust of a Nation that here, We the People rule.”
Click to expand...
Since the constitution doesn't require the state legislatures to even conduct a popular vote it seem reasonable.

While it is not in the spirit of democracy, there is nothing in the constitution to stop a state legislature from simply declaring anyone they want electors.

Should be in basic contract law though. By accepting appointment as an elector you are contractually bound to vote the way the contract specifies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top