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

• The Supreme Court will decide whether Electoral College voters have a constitutional right to cast ballots for candidates who didn’t win their state’s popular vote, the justices announced in an order on Friday.
• 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. A decision in the matter is expected by the end of June, ahead of the U.S. presidential election in November. The cases are the latest in a string of high-profile disputes the top court is expected to resolve in a contentious election year.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/17/sup...ral-college-cases-ahead-of-2020-election.html

Interesting case that will be heard this summer.

There is no requirement in practice, nor in the constitution that requires electors to abide by the popular vote.

What this would mean is that the lefts national popular vote interstate compact is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

It would effect 15 states and DC.

 

Thank the Lord we elected Trump and he appointed nonbiased judges to uphold our constitution.

 

....so then what is the point of having a vote if the electors can just pick whoever they want?

 

In practice its not an issue-though the elector may face a fine (1000 dollars).

The move by these leftist states to compel electors is merely a way to bypass the EC.

If you will recall soon after Trump won his first term lefties were quite frothy trying to find ways around the EC.

 

Sure. But ultimately you either have an EC that's bound to the Vote, or the vote is meaningless. Can't have it both ways. And yes, while many made a bunch of noise about the EC, it went nowhere.

Nobody but the will of the State should compel Electors. If the state votes for a candidate, that's who the votes should go to.

 

There's only one point here... To let California and New York, the two most heavily populated blue states, decide who the president should be.

Democrats are all about the unheard voices until they're not.

 

No one or two states should decide the election. NY, Cali, Florida, MI etc..

I think the EC is a good system, in that it allows smaller states to have a say, but right now they have more of a say then other states, which is as bad as NY and Cali having more of a say then the smaller states.

The will of the people in that state should decide who the EC puts their votes to. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Not quite. The elector has a right to vote as they see fit.

The "noise" went into this interstate pact, intended to bypass EC.

Now it gets heard by SCOTUS, and it seems likely it will be overturned just in time for the elections.

 

Odd how it always works out that way.

 

The smaller states have more of a say? I disagree... Currently, the democrat almost automatically gets 182 EC votes from the left coast, East coast, and IL. So 14 states... Most of the autos that go the republican are 3 to 7 EC votes. Texas at 38 is the biggest we have. Trump had to win every swing state along with all the red states just to win the EC vote.

 

I agree but I think it's important that the winner should take the electors from the entire state IF the state statutes so instruct.

 

The point is that voters vote for electors and then electors vote for President.

 

"The people" do not vote for President... The EC does.

 

Who are the electors? I don't recall any opportunity to vote for one, ever.

Are they publicized?

 

While they're at it, they need to fix the census so that illegals don't get representation via the Electoral College. It's a bunch of bullshit that illegals flooding Commiefornia and New York are giving those states more EC votes.

 

Kinda interesting that republicans on this thread are divided on this. I wonder if scotus will be the same.

 

You mean they need to fix the constitution, because that’s why they get representation.

 

Can you point out where the division is?

I expect SCOTUS to uphold the status quo on this.

 

All in his head.

I expect that too. It should be upheld.

 

All of these seem to feel electors should be bound by the vote in their state. If I’m wrong I hope they’ll correct me. But I agree they should be.

 

I’m not sure what the status quo even is here. Faithless electors are not new, but they also aren’t common. And how do state laws come in to play? Will this change how Nebraska and Maine apportion their electors?

 

WRONG. We need the Constitution to be applied, instead of the left importing future democrat voters. The Constitution calls for secure (sealed) borders.

 

I don't think so. Bets they leave it to the states?

 

If the electors are free to vote for whoever they want, we’ll have a national election decided by just over 500 people.

 

The status quo is what we've had since the early 1800's.

Its the lefties in these states that are seeking this pact as a means to bypass the EC.