- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Faithless elector': Supreme Court will hear case
Posted on 1/17/20 at 4:11 pm to TheFonz
Posted on 1/17/20 at 4:11 pm to TheFonz
quote:
Just have these four hundred and something assclowns elect the President.
Which is how it used to be.
In the earliest days of our Republic, you didn't so much cast a vote for President as you did for an Elector. The only people who were directly elected by the populace in the beginning were members of the House of Representatives.
1
Posted on 1/17/20 at 4:16 pm to Redleg Guy
Y'all are going to be disappointed here.
The question before the court is this:
If a person volunteers to serve as a presidential
elector for a State and pledges, as a condition of their
appointment, to vote for the presidential candidate
nominated by their political party and selected by the
State’s voters, is it unconstitutional for the State to
fine the person for violating that pledge?
SupremeCourt.gov
The question before the court is this:
If a person volunteers to serve as a presidential
elector for a State and pledges, as a condition of their
appointment, to vote for the presidential candidate
nominated by their political party and selected by the
State’s voters, is it unconstitutional for the State to
fine the person for violating that pledge?
SupremeCourt.gov
Posted on 1/17/20 at 4:20 pm to BoarEd
The only way a Republican vote in California or a Democrat vote in South Carolina to matter is to go popular vote.
Posted on 1/17/20 at 4:24 pm to Redleg Guy
I'm not advocating a popular vote. The districts are what they are. The extra layer seems like they have too much power that could potentially be abused.
Posted on 1/17/20 at 4:28 pm to TheFonz
quote:
I'm not all up on the legal mumbo jumbo on this stuff, but if they don't follow the will of the people of their state, then what's the fricking point? Just have these four hundred and something assclowns elect the President.
Dims have perfected this frickery with their “Super Delegates” BS!
Posted on 1/17/20 at 4:29 pm to Redleg Guy
Conservative here, but as much it would pain me and if I was an elector from Louisiana that voted Obama, my vote would be Obama.
Posted on 1/17/20 at 4:32 pm to Redleg Guy
Yeah. And then in the end the rural Republican voter's vote is worth even less. I get it now. 
There's problems with the system for sure. No way for it to work perfectly.
Really though, when people say, "your vote for president doesn't matter" this issue before the court is exactly why. You aren't voting for a candidate. You are voting for which party you want to nominate which elector's they want.
And I guess the question here is not whether they can act in bad faith or not (because they absolutely can), but whether or not they can be punished in any way for not voting the way they "pledged" to vote.
In 2016 some of the electors switched their vote. The question now is can they be punished? Doubtful. If they want to enact a way to punish them then those states need to ratify a law that deals with the issue, like some states already have.
Not only is there no law on the books stating they must, but these people don't even take an oath. It's a pledge. And I'd bet there is a difference between those two words in the eyes of the court.
There's problems with the system for sure. No way for it to work perfectly.
Really though, when people say, "your vote for president doesn't matter" this issue before the court is exactly why. You aren't voting for a candidate. You are voting for which party you want to nominate which elector's they want.
And I guess the question here is not whether they can act in bad faith or not (because they absolutely can), but whether or not they can be punished in any way for not voting the way they "pledged" to vote.
In 2016 some of the electors switched their vote. The question now is can they be punished? Doubtful. If they want to enact a way to punish them then those states need to ratify a law that deals with the issue, like some states already have.
Not only is there no law on the books stating they must, but these people don't even take an oath. It's a pledge. And I'd bet there is a difference between those two words in the eyes of the court.
Posted on 1/17/20 at 4:45 pm to BoarEd
quote:
Either way, the electors should have to vote the same way as the people vote.
I might agree with that if voting were mandatory and closely counted. We already have some voting districts with over 100% of registered voters having voted.
Voter ID should be mandatory.
Posted on 1/17/20 at 4:49 pm to Redleg Guy
If Hilary would have won, we would have a 5-4 Liberal court because RBG would have retired and SCOTUS would have given the electors freedom to vote anyway they choose.
Posted on 1/17/20 at 5:38 pm to Redleg Guy
Worded as subterfuge.
Electors are voted on when you vote for president in a state.
The dems have their slate of electors as do republicans
The parties electors wouldn't vote for the other parties candidate since they are party loyalists
The real question before the Supreme Court is can a state force an elector to vote for a popular vote candidate vs the candidate that actually won their state.
Electors are voted on when you vote for president in a state.
The dems have their slate of electors as do republicans
The parties electors wouldn't vote for the other parties candidate since they are party loyalists
The real question before the Supreme Court is can a state force an elector to vote for a popular vote candidate vs the candidate that actually won their state.
Posted on 1/17/20 at 5:40 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
In the earliest days of our Republic, you didn't so much cast a vote for President as you did for an Elector. The only people who were directly elected by the populace in the beginning were members of the House of Representatives.
Technically it is still that way.
Some states allow you to vote for your parties electors during the primary.
Generally a Candidates Electors are appointed by their political party and are party loyalists.
Posted on 1/17/20 at 5:43 pm to CU_Tigers4life
quote:
SCOTUS would have given the electors freedom to vote anyway they choose.
Technically it is what you want them to do.
Your party has it's own electors from each state.
The opposition party has theirs
You want the electors to remain free to cast their vote for whomever they want so that the states can't circumvent the electoral college by making the popular vote compact.
Posted on 1/17/20 at 5:47 pm to Michael Hayes
quote:
Conservative here, but as much it would pain me and if I was an elector from Louisiana that voted Obama, my vote would be Obama.
You would have never had that problem.
Obama had his own electors elected that were democrats.
McCain and Romney had their electors elected that were Republicans.
Therefore you as a Conservative would have never been elected/appointed to be an elector for the democrat party
Posted on 1/17/20 at 6:00 pm to Loserman
quote:
The real question before the Supreme Court is can a state force an elector to vote for a popular vote candidate vs the candidate that actually won their state.
That's not the way I understood it. I'm probably wrong, but I understood it as not can they force them to vote for the popular vote choice, but can they punish them for not voting for the popular vote winner.
Unless the state passes a law requiring the elector to vote for the popular vote victor the elector can vote for whoever they want. And I would imagine that the issue about whether they can punish them for not voting the same as the people is also DoA if the state doesn't have a law on the books requiring them to vote that way.
Posted on 1/17/20 at 6:17 pm to Michael Hayes
quote:
Conservative here, but as much it would pain me and if I was an elector from Louisiana that voted Obama, my vote would be Obama.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News