General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSupreme Court Decision about Electoral College
Rick Hasen
@rickhasen
·
5m
Breaking: Supreme Court unanimously holds that states can require presidential electors to vote the way the state says (no faithless electors). https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf This is great news. A contrary decision would have been a disaster:
Link to document: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf
Baitball Blogger
(46,703 posts)Why did it take us so long to see this? It's been happening since Newt Gingrich's time.
plimsoll
(1,668 posts)The irony of "activist judges" is pretty rich.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,425 posts)"A ruling in the opposite direction would have given deep-pocketed special interests the green light to openly bribe the individuals who vote in the Electoral College and would have ushered in electoral mischief at the highest levels" says
@IOMcGehee
https://issueone.org/supreme-courts-decision-in-faithless-electors-cases-is-a-relief/
Link to tweet
UTUSN
(70,684 posts)Stuckinthebush
(10,844 posts)In the end it is probably a good decision.
roamer65
(36,745 posts)Its a useless entity now.
Elect presidents from a direct popular vote runoff system.
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)to change this and ratification by the states...and it will never never happen as small states will not vote for taking down the EC.
roamer65
(36,745 posts)There is no language in the Constitution preventing secession and via the 10th Amendment unless a power is reserved by the federal government or denied to the states, it is a power left to the states and/or people.
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-x
Any secession referenda will definitely be a SCOTUS case. The SCOTUS would then have to rule according to the Constitution.
This is why the federal government dropped its case against Jefferson Davis after the Civil War.
wryter2000
(46,039 posts)And who would deliver the mail? And what about everyone on Social Security? No thanks.
sarisataka
(18,632 posts)Under Obama, the idea of secession was ridiculed. The DU consensus was the matter of secession was settled in 1865.
Furthermore, if a state was allowed to secede, it was put forth that the state should compensate the Federal government for any infrastructure or construction paid by the Federal government within the state's boundary.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)by, impoverished ex-states sacked by their wealthy conservatives and taken over by "elected" organized crime. Bringing the problems of Mexico and Central America into North America, right up close and personal around our blue redoubts.
Not a good idea. Rural America only became electrified because of redistributed wealthy-state money spent where state governments wouldn't and often couldn't. Same for roads, etc. Wealthy states haven't been supporting less wealthy and/or more conservative states that maintain large populations in poverty ONLY because liberals are such nice people.
Btw, how ABOUT controlling such things as pandemic diseases and global warming? Which have to be done. Abandoning responsibility probably isn't the answer.
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)It is a very bad idea...we need to work to win hearts and minds.
roamer65
(36,745 posts)Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)One man, one vote.
Time will tell, especially if Dump steals the election.
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)roamer65
(36,745 posts)and we are having to hold back millions of former climate deniers from moving north.
All of this stuff right now is a sideshow to the BIG EVENT.
wryter2000
(46,039 posts)If enough states agree that, no matter who their voters choose, they will order their electors to vote for the person who won the popular vote across the country, the popular vote winner will also win the electoral college. Many states have signed on. When that number reaches 271 electoral votes, the electoral college becomes irrelevant.
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)wryter2000
(46,039 posts)It's theoretically possible. We'd never get a constitutional amendment passed.
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)it...figure out how to turn it to our advantage.
struggle4progress
(118,282 posts)a few years back, and then not long afterwards it outdid itself and handed us Trump
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Is SCROTUS trying to salvage its image and stave off the inevitable expansion of the bench and term limits? Too late, I think.
Wounded Bear
(58,648 posts)No more sneaking in and snagging individual electors from blue states.
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)While the specific case was faithless electors, the ruling makes the compact initiative difficult to challenge in court, or sabatoged by faithless electors going rogue.
Amishman
(5,557 posts)by affirming the rights of states to enforce penalties against electors that go against their state's popular vote it helps build the case for the argument that the interstate compact would be unconstitutional by requiring electors to go against their state popular vote.
This ruling advances the legal precedent that electors are bound to their state's popular vote, which undermines the compact. A 9-0 ruling adds to the gravitas.
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)RedSpartan
(1,693 posts)Currently, the electors take a pledge to vote for the winner of the state's popular vote. So the court's decision was addressing the "faithless elector" in that scenario.
But the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would create a new scenario, whereby electors would pledge to vote for the winner of the national popular vote. In that case, the court's decision means that a state could punish a "faithless elector" who did not do so.
So in my view, this actually strengthens the NPVIC, if and when it is implemented.
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)electors are required to follow their state's rules.
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)Proud Liberal Dem
(24,412 posts)mcar
(42,307 posts)obamanut2012
(26,068 posts)not_the_one
(2,227 posts)it will have on the popular vote margin being larger than the electoral vote margin...
According to this, the popular vote of a state wins the electoral vote. That would seem to negate the EC for the purpose of selecting the president.
I don't see Diana and all 8 of the Supremes taking a hatchet to the republicans' wet dream.
I need further reassuring....
hedda_foil
(16,373 posts)RhodeIslandOne
(5,042 posts)Why do we even need "electors". The scoreboard says what the scoreboard says.
sarisataka
(18,632 posts)We have just told ourselves the lie that the people elect the President for so long, we have come to believe the lie is the truth.