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

Read up on the 12th amendment. An individual can not be compelled to vote a certain way.

This lefty scheme seeks to force electors to vote based on who wins the popular vote, even if that electors own state voted differently.

 

Democrats only want people in power that cheat for them, be they judges, bureaucrats or delegates.

 

Any state that would apportion it’s electors according to the vote in that state would become irrelevant. A state with 10 electoral votes that splits 5 and 5 just cancels itself out. There would be no point in campaigning there.

 

The parties select them in most states. In Texas, the Democrat Party selects 38 electors during their state convention and the Republican Party selects 38 electors during their state convention. So when Texans vote Republican, they are voting for the 38 electors chosen by their party...who then vote for the Republican candidate (unless there are faithless electors...which is allowed in the state).

 

Indeed. If SCOTUS was composed of 9 Ginsbergs, this scam would be upheld.

 

The number of electors is based on the number of Representatives....which is based on the Census count of total population, not just citizens.

Sounds like California and New York may each lose an elector after the 2020 census. They invited non-citizens to their states, but have had a larger effect of driving out their middle class voters to other states.

 

That's not true. States have one Representative per 600-700 thousand people, plus 2 Senators. It's even. Plus as someone else mentioned, the non-citizens are somewhat artificially adding electors to California and New York.

 

They are appointed by the political party. They're supposed to be loyal Democrats and loyal Republicans. Whatever party wins the popular vote in that state gets to send their delegates to vote Washington about six weeks after the national election.

Oops, this was meant to respond to a different post.

 

Yeah but loosing 1 after gaining 10 because of illegals doesn't much matter. Illegals are meddling in our elections way more than any Russian hoax ever did.

The founders didn't envision wide-ass open borders. That wasn't in the formula.

 

~ Exactly what I am thinking. A clever way to cheat !

 

Wrong. 270 people decide who the President will be.

 

What section is that?
But it says clearly who the census should count and how it should be used. If republicans want to amend it, then they can try.

 

He will reshape America back to something moderate and Constitutional and away from the nutty far left agenda. His next 4 years will be better than the first 4, especially since he laid a great economy and judicial system to work from.

 

The electors must be bound to vote according to which candidate won their state.

 

Trump won 304 to 227. Even if those 2 electoral votes went to Hillary, Trump would have still won 302 to 229.

 

You realise this can work both ways, right?

 

That’s the current system. But there is no reason why it should necessarily stay the same.
There is no legal / constitutional reason why it couldn’t be something else. For example a state could choose
- to allocate all its EC votes to the candidate who won the national popular vote
- to allocate its EC votes proportionally to the various candidates based on the percentage vote they received in the state
- to allocate EC votes by congressional district with two statewide votes going to the winner of the PV in the state.
There are unlimited ways that the states could choose to allocate EC votes.

This case is about whether the states can force Electors to follow the rules. If they can’t, you will hear a lot of calls at the next election for Electors to switch their votes from Trump to the Dem candidate.

 

Our elections are essentially 50 separate state elections. Having electors vote for the national popular vote winner, even if that state voted for the other party, would be unconstitutional. I expect that is what the Supreme Court will decide (about the national popular vote interstate compact).

In the second case about faithless electors in general, the states do have broad latitude to allow faithless electors or to cancel/void their vote (or subject them to fines). Faithless electors have never changed the outcome of an election since Thomas Jefferson. I believe the founders allowed for electors to vote their conscience in the event that the population of people becomes so uneducated in civics and so dumbed down that they elect some tyrant or criminal through the popular vote. The assumption is that the electors are much more knowledgeable about civics and our political process far more than the "average voter". Being allowed to vote their conscious could potentially divert a disaster (although "overthrowing" an election - legally- would likely start a civil war).

There was quite a ruckus, by Hollywood types on the left and Never-Trumpers on the right in 2016, calling for "Hamilton Electors" to protect the country from Trump. That was obviously a flop as they would have had to influence 37 Republican electors to be "faithless".

I agree with the theory of allowing faithless electors, as I don't think that our electors would ever have to overrule the popular vote in their respective states. It would be too difficult, hopefully, for a totally tyrannical candidate to rise all the way to the top. But I guess our general population could become more stupid than we are today.

Some anti-Trump propaganda from 2016...

 

The total number of representatives is fixed at 435. so in more populous states a Representative may re

I agree, the need for actual electors is anachronistic. No official need be appointed to insure a States' vote gets delivered to Congress. The horse and buggy days are over.

 

The days of mob rule, however, are far from over.

 

Don't missread me. Keep the electoral college just eliminate the elector and thus the ability for the vote to change on the road to Congress.

 

Not sure how you meant to end that comment, but here is the projection after the 2020 Census

 

Yeah yeah, it was an unfinished post from yesterday. I didn't intend for it to post. Don't read anything into it.

 

That was my question as well... I see the way to beat a contrary ruling by the SCOTUS by not selecting your individual state electors until AFTER the national election. And the "pledge" to support the winning candidate would have to develop actual teeth for failing to do so.

For those interested, this is how the process is done in the USA... I never thought this would be interesting reading, but it was.

https://electoralvotemap.com/how-are-electors-chosen/#How_are_Electors_Chosen

For the record, I'm still 100% for proportional electors based on state vote... also ranked voting...

 

Electors should be distributed throughout each state based on the population of that state and then they vote as a representative of the portion of the state in which they were distributed.

As a rough example NY city might get 19 electors and the other 10 spread around the rest of the state. Rather than all 29 going to New York City..

Sounds fair to me.