15 states have now passed new legislation to award the their Electoral votes to the candidate with the most popular votes, which is just the same as electing by popular vote,
What say you?
2 Likes
I’m totally against that!
I’m writing my representatives right now to see their view.
2 Likes
These will be defeated in court if challenged. The Constitution is pretty clear on how we use the electoral college.
6 Likes
I do hope you’re right my friend.
We keep hoping that these "Red Flag Laws " will be challenged but I see state after state enacting them without being challenged that I know of.
3 Likes
@Daniel66 agreed to the Red flag laws, we are preparing for a similar fight in my state. Successfully defeated multiple bills last year, but the Dems are at it again since the new session started. Stay vigilant, it’s our only hope !!!
1 Like
There are currently a challenge to be heard by SCOTUS on whether the electors have to vote for who state laws says or not - Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado v. Baca. Here is a little history …
In 1952, the constitutionality of state pledge laws was brought before the Supreme Court in Ray v. Blair , 343 U.S. 214(1952). The Court ruled in favor of state laws requiring electors to pledge to vote for the winning candidate in order to be certified as electors, as well as removing electors who refuse to pledge. The court did not rule whether pledges were enforceable. Nevertheless, the court also wrote:
However, even if such promises of candidates for the electoral college are legally unenforceable because violative of an assumed constitutional freedom of the elector under the Constitution, Art. II, § 1, to vote as he may choose [emphasis added] in the electoral college, it would not follow that the requirement of a pledge in the primary is unconstitutional.
In his dissent, justice Robert H. Jackson, joined by justice William O. Douglas, wrote: “no one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated what is implicit in its text – that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation’s highest offices.”
I’m not sure how I feel about the outcome no matter what it is. In one instance, the electors have to do what the state law says, regardless of how the voters voted. Alternatively, the electors do whatever they want to do regardless of what the state law or the voters say. The problem I see is that I do not see SCOTUS changing the law and saying specifically how the electors have to vote.
4 Likes
Welcome to the site Sir,
I agree we need to be vigilant and more importantly make our voices heard , either by contacting our representative, respectfully of course, or at the ballot box.
One of the problems that I have been hearing is how many Americans don’t take the time to vote and I include myself in that group up until 2 years ago.
By not making the time to vote and make your voice heard people are are practically giving the Leftists the election!
I let people know all the time to get and vote, I don’t tell them who to vote for but just give them some fun facts to try to persuade them, if that makes me a pain in the butt then so be it!
3 Likes
Bad choices, I presume that the 15 states are the normal suspects. But also we have a Conservative leaning US Supreme Court now so they will be taking that up in the months ahead. States cannot upend the Constitution.
2 Likes
The states are not upending the Constitution!
Article II.
SECTION. 1.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Constitution specifically says that the states “appoint” their electors as the legislature of each state directs but there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution, as amended, that says how the electors have to vote. In essence, a person could win the popular vote (or even all of the popular vote), the entire electoral college and the electoral college could elect a different candidate.
If you consider that SCOTUS has said that states cannot add any requirements for candidates who are running for federal elected officers, it seems that the same could be said for the electors.
6 Likes
I would add, look at the states that are pursuing this. Most of them go blue regardless. I do believe these anti-will of the people types are really looking for a fight.
4 Likes
Yeah Chet, that goes without saying. It’s going to backfire on these blue states however; be careful what you wish for as the saying
3 Likes
I heard an alternative view on the subject that could mean a backfire on the change. Here’s the argument…
The states that changed to the popular vote electoral results are always blue, therefore it’s pretty much a given that they will remain blue through any election. However, if the Republicans (or alternative party) get the popular vote (although rare), those blue states with the change will be forced to change their electoral votes to red.
I do think it’s wrong to usurp the individual state’s votes for the national cumulative vote.
3 Likes
@MikeBKY Yes Sir! I think it’s going to turn out not so good for the haters and bought and paid for political hacks. There’s so many of them involved just here alone in Illinois.
On a good note, my friend in Springfield telling me today Big Mike Madigan is under investigation for either Sexual Assault or Sexual Harassment he’s checking it out. Illinois State Police are investigating, He’s been in the legislature screwing people over now 49 years, since 1971 way to long. I hope those women press him like a grape.
2 Likes
So if I understand this right… The State (or their law) can not tell the electors how to vote, so the law is invalid. If an elector was required to follow the voting directions of the State they would be ineligible because that duty made them an officer holder of the United States. ?
3 Likes
That is where the Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado v. Baca cases currently before the Supreme Court come into play.
Electors are not officers of the United States. They would better be described as delegates of the states, not officers or employees.
It remains to be seen what the Court will do with the precedent set in Ray v. Blair.
4 Likes
I find it very narrow minded to rush to election by plurality in a tantrum against the results of last election.
Imagine if one of these states had a strong 3rd party candidate and voters split 40%, 40%, and 20%. These states are requiring that all 100% the electors vote for one of the 40% candidates, even though 60% of the electorate voted against that person.
2 Likes