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

Yes there were. The two faithless electors who were "pledged" to vote for Trump, but didn't, were both from Texas. One voted for Kasich/Fiorina and the other voted for Paul/Pence. Texas has no rule disqualifying or punishing faithless electors....thus no court case.

 

In the manner in which they see fit.

If you are referring to the national popular vote compact that is being pushed there is no one to bring to court yet. The problem with that is the Constitution prohibits compacts between states without Congressional approval.

It will be interesting.

 

We all get it that you apparently did get much out of your Civics and American History courses. We are the United STATES of America.

 

sad you think we did not all vote in the same Presidential election... You might want to take an online civics course....

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 regardless who the people voted for

 

Do you not grasp the very basic concept of our country and our federal government that the STATES elect the President and that is by design?
You are correct though in the sense that there is no need, at least a requirement, that the citizens in their respective states vote for their state's electors. It's up to the state legislature whether you do or not.

 

Yes, states should have the right to allow or disallow faithless electors as they see fit, per the 10th Amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That would suggest that the Supreme Court should rule in favor of today's status quo, and not make any changes at the federal level, in either direction.

I suppose it is unfortunate, then, for the faithless electors in Washington and Colorado that their states have tougher rules for electors than other states have...but the individual state's decisions should reign supreme.

It will be interesting.

 

Can you post a picture of one of these national ballots on which we voted? Can you show me your national voter registration card? Can you cite an incident where a President was elected by a national popular vote?
Explain how that by federal law in any election all voters must vote under the same law and rules, equal protection, but in your national vote people vote under all sorts rules and methods. Californians have more days to vote than me. Oregon voters can vote by mail I cannot.

The fact is you cannot cite one case in the history of the country where we have all voted in one election or where the Constitution calls for one.
Basic civics and American history.

 

That's not what the issue is at all. This issue technically comes down to whether the federal government, through the Supreme Court, will squash the individual power of each state to make up its own rules for electors, or leave the states the individual freedom and power to chose different rules for different states. It boils down to the federal government usurping more states' rights....or not.

 

agree, both sides could do this, but I think Trump supporters and anti-Trumpers are the biggest risk we have seen in a long while, I would like to see it addressed in the courts ahead of the election as it would be bad if either side stole the election like that

Trump could call the electors and ask them to do him a favor.. who knows, this President likes to cheat

 

this is about voters rights vs the states rights to overturn the will of the voters

 

"Trump supporters and anti-Trumpers." What else is there?

This isn't a partisan issue.

The Supreme Court should rule that each state can make up its own rules...which would leave things unchanged from how things are today. I expect that is not what with happen though. They'll probably force all states to conform to a national "standard", one way or the other.

 

can you post a picture of the country you voted for President, the rest of us here voted in the USA... the same Presidential election, yes we all voted in different States here, but same Presidential election

I think we should have a federal holiday on election day

 

The voters of a state elect their legislatures which end up deciding what the voting rules are. It may be indirect, but the consequences of the will of the voters chosing certain legislators over others ultimately determines how free or constrained that state's electors are.

 

yes, doesn't mean republicans trying to rig the game is not wrong, otherwise the party in power would always stay in power, we do not want a dictatorship

 

I only voted for 38 of the 538 members of the electoral college. Did your vote get to determine the slate of all 538? (That would be a "No".)

 

Where did you get to vote for your members of the electoral college?

the problem is, if the member says, oh Trump won, I do not like him, so I am voting for someone else, that is wrong on so many levels and visa versa

wars happen for less

 

That's for sure. So why does the plurality of California and New York voters want to go with the national popular vote, when the outcome would result in mob rule and a one-party dictatorship?

 

When I voted for a 3rd party in 2016, my one vote gave permission to 38 Texas electors pledged to that candidate the authority to vote for me. My electors did not get to vote, as Trump won Texas, so the 38 electors selected by the Republican party got to vote for President. 36 of them voted for Trump.

 

looks like Trump wanted the same, so much so that Trump was calling for a revolution if a President won with less votes

 

should have been 38 - how many votes were ignored by those two republican electors that refused to vote for Trump

 

Not very long ago, Trump was a businessman and showman. He was naïve about civics and our political process just as much as many "normal" citizens are today.

Someone explained to him how the electoral college works....then it made sense to him. Especially after he won.

 

Trump still is naïve about civics and our political process

the only reason Trump now supports wining with less votes... is that is how he won

 

Not enough to make a difference in the overall results. Every Representative reflects about 600-700 thousand people, not all of whom are citizens or otherwise qualified to vote (we're talking total population)....so fewer than that number of voters were "betrayed" by the faithless electors. There is also a good probability that those 2 faithless electors received millions of requests from voters begging them to be faithless...far more requests than the voters who were "betrayed".

Our state rules allow for faithless electors, unlike other states. That's just the way it is.

 

Whatever. When people intentionally elect an outsider, because they are not a life-long political elite, they don't expect that outsider to understand every detail, rule, and reason about politics. Trump gets cut more slack than a career political elite would.

 

no he doesn't, he is President - the fact that he is an outsider is not an excuse for him being a bad President, break the rules, ask favors of foreign governments to interfere in our elections, ect...