Supreme Court to decide whether EC voters have a right to differ from state popular vote

I don't see how they have a greater weight. The weight is proportional. Whether you move to California, or New York or Nebraska, you are now no better or different than anyone else in the 1 point/vote system.

 

I did not know that.

 

Well thankfully they didn't have to save the country Trump beat her by a wide margin.

 

The only election in which they voted was their in their state. The STATES elect the President not the People by design. And they only vote in their state at the good graces of their state legislature there is no constitutional require the citizens of the states vote for their electors.

 

For some reason they keep pretending we vote in a national election to elect the President and that the People elect the President. The STATES elect the President.

 

Perhaps they didn't believe they needed to save the country as the ones who refused to vote for Hillary in spite of the voters of the state.

 

And it still gets down to the legislature of each state shall determine HOW the electors will be chosen. An argument that if that "how" means you must sign a legal document saying you will vote according to the vote of the citizens that's up to the state. That seems to fall within the verbiage of the Constitution.

"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;"

It says nothing about their "conscious".

The elector is not elected by the Republican Party he is elected by the citizens on his running to vote for a particular candidate. His oath is to them to vote for the person they ran under for whom the were elected to vote for.

 

I’ll never understand why republicans put more value on arbitrary state lines than on the people who actually live in them.

 

I suggest you do more homework on civil studies.

 

Ok, but I wasn't talking about that issue.

 

"The justices said they will hear two cases brought by Electoral College voters in Washington state and Colorado who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 despite her wins in those states."

I agree regardless of the party, the people should decide, not electoral college, even if we want to go by states, the people vote should be how they vote

the fear is they will vote for Trump even if the people in their state did not, we can not have a body of people that ignores the will of the people, their job is just to vote on behalf of a group of people, not vote for themselves and ignore the peoples vote

republicans like to cheat..... we can not allow them to steal the election

 

sad you think depending on where you live your vote should have more or less weight

that said, this issue is saying that no ones vote matters, the electoral college voters can vote however they want and they will decide the President

 

this has nothing to do with that issue - Trump won with fewer votes than Hilary, everyone knows that and accepts that

this issue here is that some republicans in the last election thought the peoples vote should not count because they did not like who won, so as part of the electoral college, they refused to vote for her - this nullifies all those peoples votes

imagine if Trump won, then the electoral college, said, yeah, so what, were voting for the other guy\gal

the country would divide, and we would have another civil war if either party won that way

 

Actually, the Constitution says nothing about a popular vote, until we get to the 14th Amendment, which mentions voters voting for electors.

However, we don't vote for to chose who the electors are. The parties of each state nominate the electors initially (except Pennsylvania where the Presidential nominees hand-pick their own slate of electors, and California Democrat nominees for House and Senate each chose an elector.)

When we citizens go vote, we are voting for the slate of electors chosen by the party candidate we vote for. But....there is nothing saying that the elector can't vote his/her conscience in the Constitution. Some states do have laws binding the electors, which is what the upcoming Supreme Court cases are about. The question is whether state laws binding electors are Constitutional, given that the Constitution is silent on the subject. Or, you could say, the states have latitude in how to select electors....but does their latitude extend much beyond that task?

List of how electors are nominated by state:
https://electoralvotemap.com/how-are-electors-chosen/

Constitutional verbiage where the word "votes" is mentioned:
https://www.votefortheconstitution.com/voting---what-does-the-constitution-say.html

 

The biggest push in 2016 came largely from Liberals and a small number of Never-Trumpers to have the electors not vote for Trump after the people in various states elected him.

I do agree that if the electors ever rebelled in such numbers that it made a difference in the outcome of the election, there would be major civil unrest and revolts. But that is not a partisan Republican or Democrat issue.

If you're wanting to argue opinions on which party is more inclined to cheat elections, I'd argue that it is the Democrat Party. ...but that is not what this thread is about.

 

Yesterday, I misread your post....and incorrectly thought that the Supreme Court was going to decide on the legality of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact as a second case.

So, then, if the Supreme Court votes that electors can vote their conscience, then the Interstate Compact is essentially null and void.

If they decide that electors have to abide by any binding the states foist upon them, then the Interstate Compact could be alive and well if they get enough states joining to total 270 votes.

The Interstate Compact seems far more important than whether each state can force electors to be bound individually, as the former is clearly unconstitutional. It will become an major issue if enough states were to join.

 

https://people.howstuffworks.com/question4721.htm

Originally, states were to be considered as individual countries. What has happened is the fed gov't has usurped all or most of the power from that original design. This being the case, folks don't understand the need for an electoral college, particularly when their candidates and ideas aren't being used to govern the nation. See the difference?

Some think of this nation as a whole and each state as almost like a county. In reality, our country would be more popular to folks if the states had more individual power. You can see some of that with California's population moving out. Those whose ideas are not compatible with newer ones just leave. Those who stay form the type of state they desire. Actually, as long as the state has a republican form of government, that's how it works best according to the founding fathers' ideas.

Without the electoral college, it will be nearly impossible for anyone with a better idea to get elected. No one group or political party has all the answers. Russia has a popular vote. How long has Putin been president? Bad idea for our nation of such diverse thoughts and cultures.

 

And again the Constitution leaves it to the state legislature as to the rules those electors for the State will be chosen. If the rule says they will pledge to vote for the candidate for which they were selected else not be eligiable to be a state elector...............

 

It has everything to do with and you will have to specify which election you are talking about. He won because he won more votes in 30 of the elections that were held.

Why do you keep pretending you voted in some national vote, a national election? Tallying up all the elections that were held is NOT an accurate representation of what the results would have been had there been a national election and a national vote. Didn't you learn how we elect Presidents in school?

Whose vote did not count in their state election?

Why I can't imagine it would happen but under what circumstance are you talking?

 

Sad you think we all voted in the same election. You might want to take an online civics course.

 

You were talking about that issue

I suggest you bone up on your civics class. California has more "weight" in the EC than Delaware. The "total population" in each state had their say in their state.

 

Since the EC elects the president there really is no need for a vote from the citizens since their vote doesn't count. It is all a faux system used to suppress the masses with lies about democracy.

 

The Constitution simply directs that the states shall select electors....and not much else. Nothing on "rules" for those electors. I'm certainly happy to take your side that the states should have the power to set rules to a large extent, including rules to bind electors to vote for the party candidate (if that's what they chose).

They cross the line, in my opinion, when they set a rule that the states' electors are required to vote according to the national popular vote instead of according to the vote of the citizens of the electors' state. Apparently the Supreme Court is not going to address the latter, unless they decide that individual electors may vote their conscience. If they decide that the state can set any rules they wish and electors must follow those rules, then that legitimizes the 15 or 17 states, so far, which have made a pact to have electors vote in lockstep with the national popular vote...regardless of the popular vote within a state.

The outcome of the Supreme Court case presents a double-edged sword.

 

Well, to answer your question it's because we want a weighted score system. Otherwise, yes a banding of like minded people could determine a political outcome, to the minority's displeasure. Elections, by and large are an awful way to settle our differences as save for a plural majority(and when is the last time that's occurred in our elections?), there isn't a consensus answer.

This is why I'm a Nationalist, to support the idea of consensus and a one-party majority rule. Van Buren's idea of the controlled opposition has not united the country, but perpetually divided it.

 

Wrong. For each state, there is a set of electors for the Democrat Party and a set for the Republican Party (and separate sets for each 3rd party on the ballot). Your vote "elects" a particular set of electors. Having "faithless electors" could potentially throw a wrench in the system, but so far it has not impacted the outcome of any election in a couple hundred years.