General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBreaking: SCOTUS agrees to hear Faithless Elector case
Jan. 17, 2020, 12:31 PM PST / Updated Jan. 17, 2020, 12:35 PM PST
By Pete Williams
WASHINGTON The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Friday to take up an issue that could change a key element of the system America uses to elect its president, with a decision likely in the spring just as the campaign heats up.
The answer to the question could be a decisive one: are the electors who cast the actual Electoral College ballots for president and vice-president required to follow the results of the popular vote in their states? Or are they free to vote as they wish?
A decision that they are free agents could give a single elector, or a small group of them, the power to decide the outcome of a presidential election if the popular vote results in an apparent Electoral College tie or is close.
"It's not hard to imagine how a single 'faithless elector', voting differently than his or her state did, could swing a close presidential election," said Mark Murray, NBC News senior political editor.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/faithless-elector-supreme-court-will-hear-case-could-change-how-n1113051
Dennis Donovan
(18,770 posts)Twice, in 20 years, we've been saddled with POTUSes who didn't win the popular vote, and went on to be two of the WORST POTUSES EVER.
Fuck the electoral college once and for all.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,741 posts)Bayard
(22,184 posts)The original purpose is long since gone, and was never fair to begin with.
Talitha
(6,629 posts)Thinking of how things 'might' have turned out makes me weep.
MerryBlooms
(11,773 posts)Stronger safeguards in our elections, free ID, every state with vote by mail option, every state with a paper ballot trail.
Bok_Tukalo
(4,323 posts)If the so-called originalists (who are really neo-feudalists) on the Court rule in any way that constrains the Electors, it will be a tell that they aren't really all that caring of the Founders' intent.
The danger for the neo-feudalists on the Bench lies in delegitimizing the College.
Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)If we allow a few people -a minority of the country unrespresetnavie of it as a whole, to circumvent the whole process then WTFs the point??
BuffaloJackalope
(818 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)state. Since electors tend to be public officials, let's say in my state of Florida, Biden, or Sanders or Warren won the majority in the state, thereby taking Florida's electoral votes. But say the national electoral totals are close, with the Democrat having 273 electoral votes, enough to take the presidency. Now back to Florida, let's say a handful of republicans realize that going against the wish of the majority of voters of their state, they can hand an electoral victory to Trump by taking away some Florida electoral votes from the Democrat.
The idea of having electors vote against the wishes of the majority of their state voters came up after President Obama beat McCain and Romney. It was a tool that would allow republicans in states where republicans control the Legistlature to deny a Democrat an electoral victory,
It is a very dangerous idea that goes against the majority rule credo of our nation, even after taking into account how that credo has been abused at times during the past.
I hope that the Court trash the idea and rule that electors are bound by the will of the majority of voters in their state (or in the cases of Vermont and Nebraska, the section of the state that sent them to the electoral college).
I would like to see the electoral college eliminated and elections decided on the popular vote, but this attempt at change doesn't do that, what it does do is give republicans one more way to steal elections for President.