- 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
Supreme Court rules presidential electors must back their state’s popular vote winner
Posted on 7/6/20 at 1:12 pm
Posted on 7/6/20 at 1:12 pm
NY Post
quote:
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.
quote:
The unanimous decision in the “faithless elector” case was a defeat for those who want to change the Electoral College, and who believed a win would lead to presidential elections based on the popular or total number of votes.
quote:
But it was a win for state election officials who feared that giving more power to electors to make their own choice would cause chaos — and even lead to attempted bribery
7
Posted on 7/6/20 at 1:14 pm to High C
Here's the official message to the EC opposition/Popular Vote advocates:
This post was edited on 7/6/20 at 2:22 pm
Posted on 7/6/20 at 1:16 pm to High C
Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark.
'MERICA!!!!!!!
'MERICA!!!!!!!
Posted on 7/6/20 at 2:21 pm to High C
quote:
states can require presidential electors to back their states’ popular vote winner in the Electoral College
Your title is incorrect.
Posted on 7/6/20 at 2:26 pm to seawolf06
quote:
Your title is incorrect.
Well, it’s the title taken directly from the article. You’re right, and I even noticed it, but I wanted to represent the article as the writer intended.
Posted on 7/6/20 at 2:27 pm to tigerpawl
Bill Mazeroski broke my heart with that one.
Posted on 7/6/20 at 2:31 pm to High C
I see where people are claiming this a win for anyone who wants to get rid of Electoral College but I don't see how.
Posted on 7/6/20 at 2:34 pm to thadcastle
quote:
I see where people are claiming this a win for anyone who wants to get rid of Electoral College but I don't see how.
This marginally strengthens the EC if anything.
Posted on 7/6/20 at 2:39 pm to High C
quote:
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that states can require presidential electors to back their states’ popular vote winner in the Electoral College.
quote:
The unanimous decision in the “faithless elector” case was a defeat for those who want to change the Electoral College, and who believed a win would lead to presidential elections based on the popular or total number of votes.
Damn! That means the country still has to operate by the rules that were written in the Constitution! THAT IS SYTEMICALLY RACIST!
Posted on 7/6/20 at 2:41 pm to tigerpawl
frick Bill Mazeroski
Posted on 7/6/20 at 3:04 pm to tigerpawl
Where you decide to stop that argument is completely arbitrary. One could just as easily ask, why not break it down to who won each inning.
Posted on 7/6/20 at 3:59 pm to High C
Voted along party lines?
If they did, then it's 100% proof the Liberals on the bench are for agendas and not the Constitution.
Trump put in 2 Constitutional Judges. Conservatives might not always like their decisions, but they have a reason, and it's based on their feel of the constitution, not like that tard, sotomeyer, who looks at case and takes a stand based on her agenda, not the laws of this land.
If they did, then it's 100% proof the Liberals on the bench are for agendas and not the Constitution.
Trump put in 2 Constitutional Judges. Conservatives might not always like their decisions, but they have a reason, and it's based on their feel of the constitution, not like that tard, sotomeyer, who looks at case and takes a stand based on her agenda, not the laws of this land.
Posted on 7/6/20 at 4:04 pm to High C
You can get rid of the electoral college
You need 290 members of the House, 67 members of the Senate, and 38 state governments to approve a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college.
Get to work people...
You need 290 members of the House, 67 members of the Senate, and 38 state governments to approve a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college.
Get to work people...
Posted on 7/6/20 at 4:05 pm to SeeeeK
quote:
Voted along party lines?
9-0
Posted on 7/7/20 at 9:48 am to thadcastle
quote:
I see where people are claiming this a win for anyone who wants to get rid of Electoral College but I don't see how.
It's probably because they did not go as far to say that Electors MUST vote the way that the state popular vote goes.
This means that states can still decide to give their electors to the winner of the NATIONAL popular vote.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News