Faithless elector: A court ruling just changed how we pick our president

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: NBC

A federal appeals court ruled late Tuesday that presidential electors who cast the actual ballots for president and vice president are free to vote as they wish and cannot be required to follow the results of the popular vote in their states.

The decision could give a single elector the power to decide the outcome of a presidential election — if the popular vote results in an apparent Electoral College tie.
"This issue could be a ticking time bomb in our divided politics. It's not hard to imagine how a single faithless elector, voting differently than his or her state did, could swing a close presidential election," said Mark Murray, NBC News senior political editor.

It hasn't been much of an issue in American political history because when an elector refuses to follow the results of a state's popular vote, the state simply throws the ballot away. But Tuesday's ruling says states cannot do that.



Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/faithless-elector-a-court-ruling-just-changed-how-we-pick-our-president/ar-AAG8tdZ?li=BBnb7Kz

[Orangepeel]

1. electors are chosen because they are highly partisan

they aren't random people. it is highly unlikely that an elector would vote in a way that would swing the election.

[bluestarone]

3. I know you're 100% right BUT

This day and age with everything going so shitty, i can't help but feel uneasy about everything concerning our 2020 election! I trust nothing anymore.

[bdamomma]

35. This regime

wants everyone to think that, not to trust anything anymore, which could be very dangerous for us.

[Retrograde]

2. The faithless electors in 2016

were all Democrats - at least in name - who voted for someone other than Clinton. Republicans tend to be much better about following party directives.

[Lars39]

4. iirc, some were even lobbyists.

[LisaM]

8. Yes, there was one in Washington state

who said that he wouldn't vote for Hillary even if it cost her the election.

[onenote]

27. Right. Robert Satiacum Jr., a native American activist, cast his vote for Spotted Faith Eagle.

[onenote]

25. Wrong. There were both Republican and Democratic faithless electors in 2016

Five electors pledged to Clinton in states won by Clinton cast their votes for another person: 3 for Colin Powell, 1 for Bernie Sanders, and one for Faith Spotted Eagle.

Two electors pledged to Trump cast in states won by Trump cast their votes for another person: one for Kasich and one for Ron Paul.

Three other faithless elector votes were disallowed. Both were in states won by Clinton. In Minnesota, 2 of Clinton-pledged electors voted for Bernie Sanders. And in Colorado, one elector pledged to Clinton voted for Kasich, which is the situation that gave rise to the lawsuit.

[MichMan]

5. Is bribery permissible?

[lagomorph777]

39. Yes: See Citizens United and many other recent cases.

https://promarket.org/how-the-supreme-court-is-rebranding-corruption/

[BigmanPigman]

6. Another reason to get rid of the Electoral College

completely. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know we need a constitutional amendment to do this but it can be done...look at prohibition.

[BlueMTexpat]

17. THIS!!!!!

[JudyM]

26. + 1 (trillion)

[BigmanPigman]

28. Even Lawrence Tribe mentioned this in an article today.

"The Constitution is not perfect. It has any number of flaws, such as the Electoral College. But despite its structural flaws the United States Constitution is pretty good — if we have the right people leading the country. But if you have a Congress of the United States that has no interest in doing anything but getting re-elected, and if they're slavishly following one leader and they're unwilling to hold them to account, then the United States and the American people are really in trouble."


https://www.salon.com/2019/08/22/constitutional-scholar-laurence-tribe-if-the-framers-could-be-resurrected-theyd-want-impeachment/

[JudyM]

29. Apparently we need an enforceable code of conduct for Congress

that includes “people/country over party” and “people over donors,” etc.

[BigmanPigman]

30. I don't think some members of Congress

even classify as "people" at this stage of the game. They seem to resemble pod look alikes from Invasion of the Body Snatchers. They may look like people but they do NOT act like people.

[JudyM]

31. Lol, some do not even look like people!

[NYC Liberal]

34. It'll happen as soon as a Republican wins the popular vote but loses the EC,

something that so far has only happened to Democrats.

About 5 minutes after it happens to a Republican, every GOP legislature in the country will be ratifying the amendment.

[bdamomma]

36. I thought states were working on this

to eliminate the electoral college.

found this article:

https://www.businessinsider.com/states-national-popular-vote-compact-electoral-college-president-election-2019-4

snip of article:


14 states and the District of Columbia have joined a movement to bypass the Electoral College and join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, in which member states pledge to give all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the popular vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

[BigmanPigman]

40. I read about this before too.

I think the blue states are slowly accepting it but the red ones are not (naturally).

[Cryptoad]

7. Rumor control has it

Trump and Oligarch bud are busy setting up off shore shell company accounts for 270 electors.......

[htuttle]

14. Had the same thought

The list of potential targets for bribery and blackmail just got longer.

[roody]

9. Another issue but related

A few Democratic superdelegates voted for the candidate that did not win their state's primary.

[El Supremo]

10. BFD

Interference in our elections by Russia is a far greater issue.

[Marthe48]

11. Can the ruling be appealed?

Its a federal ruling, might it go to the s.c?

[Igel]

12. I remember when this case was filed.

My first thought was, "Constitution doesn't place limits, states won't be allowed to."

I may not like faithless electors, but in certain circumstances I could see them saving a lot of pain, cost, time, and, well, pain--it's worth saying twice). I also think that having states dictate to the Constitution is a bit strange, even if it's something I like.

[onenote]

24. yes, and given that it was a 2-1 decision, I would expect either a petition for rehearing

by the entire 10th circuit or a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.

The two judges ruling that faithless electors can't be compelled to vote a particular way were an Obama appointee (who wrote the opinion) and a GWBush appointee. The dissent came from a judge appointed by Bill Clinton.

[Polybius]

13. Good ruling IMO

We might not like the EC, but it's in place at the moment.

[YOHABLO]

15. The Electoral system must be terminated. It's a farce. It's anti-democratic IMO.

Same with Super Delegates. BShite.

[onetexan]

38. agree - K&R

[PoliticAverse]

16. It really didn't change "how we pick our president". Also few really think "faithless elector"...

Last edited Thu Aug 22, 2019, 01:08 PM - Edit history (1)

laws are constitutional.

[Recursion]

18. Honestly I can't think of an argument in the other direction

It's hard to say that's not the clear sense of the Constitution.

[DeminPennswoods]

19. This is how the Electoral College was intended to work

by the Framers - as a check on putting an unfit candidate, who might be elected by popular vote, in the office of president.

[PRETZEL]

21. Totally agree

I think it's the evolution of states adopting "winner takes all" is the bigger issue, not the actual framework.

[ProfessorPlum]

23. and we see that it is a failure at its one job

of keeping unfit candidates out.

Ironic that the EC in trying to prevent unfit candidates by popular vote, has delivered to us an unfit candidate via the electoral college.

[Locutusofborg]

32. But it could also work just the opposite

One elector could put an unfit candidate, who might have LOST the popular vote in the office of president. Sound familiar?

[BadGimp]

20. Yet another opening for Trump, the GOP and Putin to steal our 2020 Elections.

[malthaussen]

22. The judge could hardly have ruled otherwise.

There would be no point to the Electoral College if electors simply followed the popular vote.

Wait a minute...

-- Mal

[treestar]

33. The original intent seems to me to be

that his be the case and it should have worked that way in 2016. The whole point was for them to save us from a deranged mad president. The winner take all in each state election was passed later, probably thinking that it made it the will of the people, but since the number of electors per state is the number of representatives plus 2 for Senators, the per-Senator votes allow the distortion that makes it possible for the popular vote winner to lose.

[MarkmBha1]

37. Gov't.

America needs a new form of government - now!