ryoder 1,381 #1 Posted July 7, 2020 https://www.cpr.org/2020/07/06/supreme-court-unanimously-sides-with-colorado-washington-in-faithless-electors-case/ Now we can stop pretending that the EC is supposedly a group of wise elders who can over-rule a bad popular choice. (As if the 2016 election wasn't already proof). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 197 #2 July 7, 2020 The SCOTUS giveth and the SCOTUS taketh away. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,903 #3 July 7, 2020 My understanding is that the ruling does not mean that an elector can not vote anyway she chooses. Only that a state is free to fine her if she votes in a "faithless" manner. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #4 July 7, 2020 51 minutes ago, gowlerk said: My understanding is that the ruling does not mean that an elector can not vote anyway she chooses. Only that a state is free to fine her if she votes in a "faithless" manner. Sounds like it does both. According to the article, in one of the cases ruled on state officials removed and replaced an elector who attempted to vote against the outcome of the popular ballot, and the SC supported that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,903 #5 July 7, 2020 Just now, jakee said: Sounds like it does both. According to the article, in one of the cases ruled on state officials removed and replaced an elector who attempted to vote against the outcome of the popular ballot, and the SC supported that. Yes, it is more complicated than I first thought. But in order to be able to dismiss and change an elector the state would need to be able to somehow predict her vote. I don't see anyway to actually compel a vote. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #6 July 7, 2020 8 minutes ago, gowlerk said: Yes, it is more complicated than I first thought. But in order to be able to dismiss and change an elector the state would need to be able to somehow predict her vote. I don't see anyway to actually compel a vote. Nope. EC voting isn't like voting. It's not a secret ballot. The good news is, if you want to know how it went down you can actually watch how it went down. TBH, the thing it really highlights is what an pointless dog and pony show it is just to pay lip service to an arcane and outmoded system. America is so weird. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kMvOkfpONE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfzombie13 307 #7 July 8, 2020 18 hours ago, gowlerk said: My understanding is that the ruling does not mean that an elector can not vote anyway she chooses. Only that a state is free to fine her if she votes in a "faithless" manner. i understood it to mean that it upheld the state laws that mandated voting to match the popular vote, something that every state doesn't have. the rest of the electors are free to vote for whomever they wish absent the laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,903 #8 July 8, 2020 17 hours ago, jakee said: TBH, the thing it really highlights is what an pointless dog and pony show it is just to pay lip service to an arcane and outmoded system. America is so weird. That was a good link. I now see the process. I knew it was not a secret ballot, but I envisioned them all being opened and counted in Washington. It is a little arcane and weird, but hardly weirder than what the monarchy has left us with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,381 #9 July 8, 2020 20 minutes ago, gowlerk said: That was a good link. I now see the process. I knew it was not a secret ballot, but I envisioned them all being opened and counted in Washington. It is a little arcane and weird, but hardly weirder than what the monarchy has left us with. As Yale Law Professor Akhil Amar states in his lecture series (on Youtube): The EC electors are "potted plants" who are not supposed do any thinking, but just do as they are told. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
