- 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: SCOTUS Rules 9-0 States Can Bind Faithless Electors
Posted on 7/6/20 at 10:07 am to FalseProphet
Posted on 7/6/20 at 10:07 am to FalseProphet
quote:
Also a win for those pushing the popular vote compact. An elector can now be compelled, under pain of penalty, to vote for someone who doesn't win their state.
A state legislature can now basically compel electors to vote for whoever the legislature wants.
No this isn't what the ruling means at all. You are confused.
0
Posted on 7/6/20 at 10:34 am to SlowFlowPro
You do realize that the electoral college is established by the Constitution of the United States and not the states, right? For states to try and do the "popular vote" change requires a federal constitution change. A state can't just do that on their own.
Posted on 7/6/20 at 10:41 am to notsince98
quote:
You do realize that the electoral college is established by the Constitution of the United States and not the states, right? For states to try and do the "popular vote" change requires a federal constitution change. A state can't just do that on their own.
Correct, and states may not enter into compacts with other states either.
Posted on 7/6/20 at 10:58 am to SSpaniel
quote:
A state could just as easily change their laws to say that "The electors of Tennessee will be bound to the candidate that the voters from the state of California chose."
And it'd have to stick?
This is essentially what the compact wants - as always they hide the true intent behind a barrage of word salad.
Posted on 7/6/20 at 11:08 am to MrLarson
quote:
quote:
Can Bind Faithless Electors
Word should be MUST or it means nothing.
What would have been devastating is if SCOTUS would have said Faithless Voters can vote as the please and the State couldn't intervene.
This was a win for the Electoral College
Posted on 7/6/20 at 11:20 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
you can't give states broad powers and then take it back when they use those powers in a way you don't like
There's a slight problem with this way of thinking. The Federal government doesn't give the states ANY powers. The states are the ones who give the federal government power (at least constitutionally that's how it's supposed to work.) Of course, the federal government doesn't exactly have a good track record of following the Constitution for quite some time now.
Posted on 7/6/20 at 11:24 am to CU_Tigers4life
quote:
SCOTUS Rules 9-0 States Can Bind Faithless Electors
This is the operative word here, and really changes nothing because it simply allows the states to do as they please.
The Popular Vote Compact effort will trudge along until they attempt to use it to impact the results of an election before SCOTUS has the opportunity to put it to rest completely.
Posted on 7/6/20 at 11:24 am to FalseProphet
quote:
An elector can now be compelled, under pain of penalty, to vote for someone who doesn't win their state.
I am not sure about that.
Posted on 7/6/20 at 11:28 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
tates who want the compact will just change their laws to say the candidate who wins the national popular vote wins the state
I agree with you, just don't see how that gets past Term Limits v. Thorton when the time comes.
Posted on 7/6/20 at 11:32 am to SSpaniel
quote:
states who want the compact will just change their laws to say the candidate who wins the national popular vote wins the state
quote:If that's the case, then a state could pick and choose laws from other states, such as,
That literally makes no sense.
A state could just as easily change their laws to say that "The electors of Tennessee will be bound to the candidate that the voters from the state of California chose."
And it'd have to stick?
"The citizens of Texas will be bound by the gun laws of the State of New York."
Right. Doesn't work that way.
Posted on 7/6/20 at 11:43 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
winner takes all disenfranchises voters of the state as well
No it doesn't. That's how elections are contested. One side wins and the other side loses.
So I'm disenfranchised in GA if I voted for Stacy Abrams because she lost her bid for governor?!? Asinine reasoning there.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News