Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Court rules Electoral College members aren't bound by popular vote

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Court rules Electoral College members aren't bound by popular vote



    DENVER — A U.S. appeals court in Denver said Electoral College members can vote for the presidential candidate of their choice and aren’t bound by the popular vote in their states.

    The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the Colorado secretary of state violated the Constitution in 2016 when he removed an elector and nullified his vote when the elector refused to cast his ballot for Democrat Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote.


    It was not immediately clear what effect the ruling might have on the Electoral College system, which is established in the Constitution. Voters in each state choose members of the Electoral College, called electors, who are pledged to a presidential candidate. The electors then choose the president.

    Most states require electors to vote for the candidate who won the popular vote in that state, but the Denver appeals court said the states do not have that authority.


    The Constitution allows electors to cast their votes at their own discretion, the ruling said, “and the state does not possess countervailing authority to remove an elector and to cancel his vote in response to the exercise of that Constitutional right.”

    The elector at the center of the case, Micheal Baca, was part of a group known as “Hamilton electors” who tried to convince electors who were pledged to Clinton or Donald Trump to unite behind a consensus candidate to deny Trump the presidency.


    After a flurry of filings in state and federal courts, the electors met on Dec. 19, 2016, and Baca crossed out Clinton’s name on his ballot and wrote in John Kasich, the Republican governor of Ohio who also ran for president.

    Then-Secretary of State Wayne Williams refused to count the vote and removed Baca as an elector. He replaced him with another elector who voted for Clinton.

    Baca’s attorneys said the U.S. Supreme Court will likely hear the case because it conflicts with a decision from Washington state’s Supreme Court. That court said in May that electors could be fined for not casting ballots for the popular vote winner.


    Colorado’s current secretary of state, Jena Griswold, decried the ruling Tuesday in Colorado but did not immediately say if she would appeal.

    “This court decision takes power from Colorado voters and sets a dangerous precedent,” she said. “Our nation stands on the principle of one person, one vote

  • #2
    Court got it right. That is a protection built into the Constitution.
    "Self-government won't work without self-discipline." - Paul Harvey

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by GhostTX View Post
      Court got it right. That is a protection built into the Constitution.
      To play devils advocate, isn't an elector decided by the parties prior to the final electoral vote? If that's the case each party should have the right to substitute their chosen person if their designated rules are violated. The person initially chosen is still able to vote in the popular vote...

      Comment


      • #4
        This smells like an attempt by socialists to count all those undocumented votes in CA to further their agenda. Using the courts when you can’t legislate this BS.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by AnthonyS View Post
          This smells like an attempt by socialists to count all those undocumented votes in CA to further their agenda. Using the courts when you can’t legislate this BS.
          Wouldn't this actually be the opposite? This is saying someone doesn't have to go with the popular vote. This exact same thing happened here in Texas when a guy wouldn't vote for Trump, he was replaced (I think there were actually two separate people and one of them resigned prior to.)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by jewozzy View Post
            Wouldn't this actually be the opposite? This is saying someone doesn't have to go with the popular vote. This exact same thing happened here in Texas when a guy wouldn't vote for Trump, he was replaced (I think there were actually two separate people and one of them resigned prior to.)
            In one case. This is step #1 in abolishing the electoral college and step #2 is allowing undocumented voters and popular vote decides it. This gives the cities with the idiot majorities all the power.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by AnthonyS View Post
              In one case. This is step #1 in abolishing the electoral college and step #2 is allowing undocumented voters and popular vote decides it. This gives the cities with the idiot majorities all the power.
              Or its just a case to be made that ruling political parties shouldn't pick who the electoral voter is.

              For the record I agree with the electoral college voting system but do think it could be tweaked.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by jewozzy View Post
                Or its just a case to be made that ruling political parties shouldn't pick who the electoral voter is.

                For the record I agree with the electoral college voting system but do think it could be tweaked.
                What tweaks would you make?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Ruffdaddy View Post
                  What tweaks would you make?
                  Little changes that most likely wouldn't make a difference either way. One in particular would be in Texas for example. Right now all of the votes go one way or the other based on the popular vote for the state. I think if Texas has 38 votes for example it should be based on 38 separate districts within the state and each district gets their own vote. If you did that same thing in states like California then obviously it wouldn't be 55 votes always going to liberals. Nebraska and Maine are the only two states that currently allow this.

                  So essentially each state would still have their vote, and the electoral college voter would be required to go with the candidate that won the majority within abc district of xyz state.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by jewozzy View Post
                    To play devils advocate, isn't an elector decided by the parties prior to the final electoral vote? If that's the case each party should have the right to substitute their chosen person if their designated rules are violated. The person initially chosen is still able to vote in the popular vote...
                    When you vote for the President, you're effectively voting for a Democrat elector or a Republican elector. That "winning" person can cast their electoral vote however they want. Historically, they cast a vote for the side they are on (faithful elector), but occasionally, they'll vote for another person (faithless elector).

                    What CO did was replace the elector because that elector didn't vote the way the state wanted. The power in the Constitution is one more check in power in case the popular vote is going for a complete nut job of a President the elector cannot conscientiously vote for.
                    "Self-government won't work without self-discipline." - Paul Harvey

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by GhostTX View Post
                      When you vote for the President, you're effectively voting for a Democrat elector or a Republican elector. That "winning" person can cast their electoral vote however they want. Historically, they cast a vote for the side they are on (faithful elector), but occasionally, they'll vote for another person (faithless elector).

                      What CO did was replace the elector because that elector didn't vote the way the state wanted. The power in the Constitution is one more check in power in case the popular vote is going for a complete nut job of a President the elector cannot conscientiously vote for.
                      This

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X