Supreme Court rules presidential electors must back their state’s popular vote winner

@thewheels · Jul 6, 2020

The article title and the 1st sentence don't even agree with each other.
Last I knew, The words "must" and "can" have different meanings.

prambo · Jul 6, 2020

Who can figure what SCROTUM does and why? Not me.

Other than Clarence Thomas, they must write their opinions with these...

@thewheels · Jul 6, 2020

prambo said:
Who can figure what SCROTUM does and why? Not me.

Other than Clarence Thomas, they must write their opinions with these...

View attachment 78498

Only after nibbling on them for a while.

Grimscale · Jul 7, 2020

My question is:

If the State electors can/must back the State popular vote, does that eliminate States whose electors are split between parties based on regional voting?
Are there ever situations where only some of the State electors vote for a particular candidate based on the percentage of voters who chose that candidate?

Benny · Jul 7, 2020

Grimscale said:
My question is:

If the State electors can/must back the State popular vote, does that eliminate States whose electors are split between parties based on regional voting?
Are there ever situations where only some of the State electors vote for a particular candidate based on the percentage of voters who chose that candidate?

Maine and Nebraska are the only ones that do. Everyone else is winner takes all

dsdmmat · Jul 7, 2020

Grimscale said:
My question is:

If the State electors can/must back the State popular vote, does that eliminate States whose electors are split between parties based on regional voting?
Are there ever situations where only some of the State electors vote for a particular candidate based on the percentage of voters who chose that candidate?

No the states that split their vote along popular vote percentage are not effected that is codified in their election law. This was about rogue electors voting the way they want to instead of by the desires of the people.

What will be interesting to see is if it applies to the states who pledge to have their electoral college vote go to the nation wide popular vote winner. Once those states who have joined the pact get to 270, the presidency will be determined by them and them alone.

Grimscale · Jul 7, 2020

dsdmmat said:
What will be interesting to see is if it applies to the states who pledge to have their electoral college vote go to the nation wide popular vote winner.

didn't this ruling effectively cancel that out? it is quite possible for the National popular vote to go one way and the State popular vote go the other.

dsdmmat · Jul 7, 2020

Grimscale said:
didn't this ruling effectively cancel that out? it is quite possible for the National popular vote to go one way and the State popular vote go the other.

Depends upon how the states election law is written. This ruling was about faithless voters in the electoral college. Not underhanded state governorships and law making bodies.

Paxal · Jul 7, 2020

Doesn’t this basically nullify the electoral college? The point of it was, I think, to supply another level of security from “mob rule.” They have now created a standard under which the electoral college can not, if needed, go against the will of the mob.

SomeSoldier · Jul 7, 2020

Meh, government is not longer effective.

BuffNiag · Jul 7, 2020

Paxal said:
Doesn’t this basically nullify the electoral college? The point of it was, I think, to supply another level of security from “mob rule.” They have now created a standard under which the electoral college can not, if needed, go against the will of the mob.

Under what circumstances should the electors vote against the popular vote?

If the electoral college were abolished, it’s a guarantee of Dem candidates for eternity. Lower population states tend to be red and have a disproportionately higher number of electors. Without them, larger population states would dominate the elections.

Curmudgeon · Jul 7, 2020

Imma vote really hard this November.

Chevusa · Jul 7, 2020

This all started in 2016 when state electors went on record to say they wouldn't vote for Trump, even if he won the state. They threatened to go rogue. I believe they are allowed to do it technically but it is very unethical and undermines We The People.

Marine Cpl · Jul 7, 2020

Quite frankly their should be an electoral college on the state level. Every county would have a certain amount of electoral votes based on population. NYC 12 votes. Erie County 4 votes. Albany county 7 votes.

spat · Jul 8, 2020

Grimscale said:
didn't this ruling effectively cancel that out? it is quite possible for the National popular vote to go one way and the State popular vote go the other.

The way I read this ruling the state *can* force the electors to vote the way they pledged when nominated.

That is all.

Remember, the public is just voting for electors not presidential candidates. That "Trump" or "Biden" line on the ballot really just says "an elector who promised to vote for...."

This just says that if the elector got on the public ballot by pledging to vote for X, he actually has to vote for X when the electoral vote happens.

It doesn't say anything about how the actual electors are chosen, just that they can't go back on the promise they made when nominated.

spat · Jul 8, 2020

Marine Cpl said:
Quite frankly their should be an electoral college on the state level. Every county would have a certain amount of electoral votes based on population. NYC 12 votes. Erie County 4 votes. Albany county 7 votes.

Except it would be NYC 1,234 votes. Livingston county 2.

Wouldn't help much.

Paxal · Jul 8, 2020

BuffNiag said:
Under what circumstances should the electors vote against the popular vote?

If the electoral college were abolished, it’s a guarantee of Dem candidates for eternity. Lower population states tend to be red and have a disproportionately higher number of electors. Without them, larger population states would dominate the elections.

View attachment 78567

Agreed! You supported my point. The electors are there to protect against a fraudulent outcome, or candidate. As an example: suppose Biden got elected, due to his mental imcapacity being hidden from the populace through media manipulation and subversion of the truth regarding his fitness for office. Just for a kicker, suppose he was also a communist sympathizer. Just suppose that were to happen. In theory, the electors, who theoretically, know the truth about him, could cast votes against him and keep him from office. If they are bound to the popular vote then they do not have that ability, and the mob wins.

pjzwtl · Jul 8, 2020

spat said:
The way I read this ruling the state *can* force the electors to vote the way they pledged when nominated.

That is all.

Remember, the public is just voting for electors not presidential candidates. That "Trump" or "Biden" line on the ballot really just says "an elector who promised to vote for...."

This just says that if the elector got on the public ballot by pledging to vote for X, he actually has to vote for X when the electoral vote happens.

It doesn't say anything about how the actual electors are chosen, just that they can't go back on the promise they made when nominated.

Yup the thread title said it all

SmallGameAddict · Jul 8, 2020

Personally, I think a "Blue Wave" just ran into a breakwall.

Defilade · Jul 9, 2020

What are Libs going to say when the Popular vote destroys Bidens. Cause that is going to happen.

Saltwater60 · Jul 9, 2020

dsdmmat said:
No the states that split their vote along popular vote percentage are not effected that is codified in their election law. This was about rogue electors voting the way they want to instead of by the desires of the people.

What will be interesting to see is if it applies to the states who pledge to have their electoral college vote go to the nation wide popular vote winner. Once those states who have joined the pact get to 270, the presidency will be determined by them and them alone.

What happens if and when they change these state laws??

SmallGameAddict · Jul 9, 2020

Saltwater60 said:
What happens if and when they change these state laws??

Someone gets more electoral votes.

dsdmmat · Jul 9, 2020

Saltwater60 said:
What happens if and when they change these state laws??

Gallows And guillotines get built on the lawns of capital buildings

CaseHardened · Jul 20, 2020

DoD1776 said:

Is this good or bad!?

Click to expand...

DoD1776 said:
Supreme Court rules presidential electors must back their state’s popular vote winner

The ruling, just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind their share of the 538 electors to vote for the state…

nypost.com

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that states can require presidential electors to back their states’ popular vote winner in the Electoral College.

The ruling, just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind their share of the 538 electors to vote for the states’ popular-vote winner.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court that a state may instruct “electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens. That direction accords with the Constitution — as well as with the trust of a Nation that here, We the People rule.”

Very, Very GOOD.

Acer-m14 · Jul 21, 2020

whats the penalty if they don't ?

BDinPutnam · Jul 21, 2020

Defilade said:
What are Libs going to say when the Popular vote destroys Bidens. Cause that is going to happen.

I.... somewhat doubt it.

CaseHardened · Dec 29, 2022

Want to solve our election crisis ?

Voting age 21.

Only BIOLOGICAL MEN of every race or color or culture.

They should also be eligible for the DRAFT.

Never happen.

Ok...

21, in person/one day voting, and NO Policitcal affiliation allowed to be displayed on the ballot.

Defilade · Dec 30, 2022

Fraud violates all of it.

spat · Dec 30, 2022

DoD1776 said:
Is this good or bad!?

Supreme Court rules presidential electors must back their state’s popular vote winner

The ruling, just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind their share of the 538 electors to vote for the state…

nypost.com

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that states can require presidential electors to back their states’ popular vote winner in the Electoral College.

The ruling, just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind their share of the 538 electors to vote for the states’ popular-vote winner.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court that a state may instruct “electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens. That direction accords with the Constitution — as well as with the trust of a Nation that here, We the People rule.”

Since the constitution doesn't require the state legislatures to even conduct a popular vote it seem reasonable.

While it is not in the spirit of democracy, there is nothing in the constitution to stop a state legislature from simply declaring anyone they want electors.

Should be in basic contract law though. By accepting appointment as an elector you are contractually bound to vote the way the contract specifies.

Supreme Court rules presidential electors must back their state’s popular vote winner

NYGF's own Whippersnapper !

.308 Win

.475 A&M Magnum

.308 Win

.338 Win Mag

.38 Special

Donut Master

.338 Win Mag

Donut Master

.223 Rem

.450/400 Nitro Ex

6.5 Creedmoor

.308 Win

Attachments

.338 Win Mag

.577 Tyrannosaur.

.700 Nitro Express

.700 Nitro Express

.223 Rem

.308 Win

.308 Win

.577 Tyrannosaur.

.950 JDJ

.308 Win

Donut Master

.450/400 Nitro Ex

.950 JDJ

.475 A&M Magnum

.450/400 Nitro Ex

.577 Tyrannosaur.

.700 Nitro Express