Appeals Court: presidential electors have a constitutional right to be faithless
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:25:41 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
  Appeals Court: presidential electors have a constitutional right to be faithless
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Appeals Court: presidential electors have a constitutional right to be faithless  (Read 2385 times)
Helsinkian
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,824
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 23, 2019, 08:44:51 AM »

Quote from: NY Times
In a ruling that kicks at the foundation of how America chooses presidents, a federal appeals court on Tuesday said members of the Electoral College, who cast the actual votes for president, may choose whomever they please regardless of a state’s popular vote.

The ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver said Colorado was out of bounds in 2016 when it canceled the vote of a so-called faithless elector named Michael Baca. Mr. Baca, a Democrat, wrote in the name of John Kasich, a Republican who was Ohio’s governor at the time, even though Hillary Clinton carried Colorado, earning its nine electoral votes. The secretary of state replaced Mr. Baca with another elector who then voted for Mrs. Clinton.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/22/us/politics/electoral-college-faithless-elector.html
Logged
pops
katman46
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 770


Political Matrix
E: -7.00, S: 4.00

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2019, 04:21:21 PM »

You can thank faithless electors for giving the first electoral vote to a woman in 1972 and for giving the first electoral vote to (two!) natives in 2016.

On another note, does this void state-created penalties on faithless electors?
Logged
zorkpolitics
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,188
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 23, 2019, 07:26:18 PM »

This ruling brings the electoral college back to its constitutional roots.  The EC was expected to be a deliberative body that voted for the best person free of the "emotions" of the campaign.
Still it will continue to be incredibly rare for an elector to vote against the state result.

Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,155


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 24, 2019, 04:56:07 PM »

This is the correct ruling, and the electoral college is still a joke.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 25, 2019, 12:47:44 PM »

You can thank faithless electors for giving the first electoral vote to a woman in 1972 and for giving the first electoral vote to (two!) natives in 2016.

On another note, does this void state-created penalties on faithless electors?

Actually, that happened in 1928.  Charles Curtis, Herbert Hoover's VP was a Native American, a registered member of the Kaw tribe.
Logged
MarkD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,131
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 25, 2019, 01:55:09 PM »


snip

On another note, does this void state-created penalties on faithless electors?

I believe so, yes.

This is the correct ruling, and the electoral college is still a joke.

That's two points I agree with you about.
Logged
pops
katman46
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 770


Political Matrix
E: -7.00, S: 4.00

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 25, 2019, 02:05:34 PM »

You can thank faithless electors for giving the first electoral vote to a woman in 1972 and for giving the first electoral vote to (two!) natives in 2016.

On another note, does this void state-created penalties on faithless electors?

Actually, that happened in 1928.  Charles Curtis, Herbert Hoover's VP was a Native American, a registered member of the Kaw tribe.


Well that's embarassing
Logged
emailking
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,971
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 26, 2019, 09:04:05 AM »

I also agree that Constitutionally this is the correct interpretation, and that the electoral college needs to go.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 09, 2019, 10:26:05 AM »

This is the correct ruling, and the electoral college is still a joke.

It's the correct ruling because the electoral college is a joke.
Logged
Xeuma
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 711
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: 0.00

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 25, 2019, 10:27:06 PM »

This ruling brings the electoral college back to its constitutional roots.  The EC was expected to be a deliberative body that voted for the best person free of the "emotions" of the campaign.
Still it will continue to be incredibly rare for an elector to vote against the state result.



The College cannot be a deliberative body, as the electors of each state meet in the capital of their state. That is a constitutional requirement. There is no communication between the electors of two different states.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 26, 2019, 07:06:41 AM »

This ruling brings the electoral college back to its constitutional roots.  The EC was expected to be a deliberative body that voted for the best person free of the "emotions" of the campaign.
Still it will continue to be incredibly rare for an elector to vote against the state result.



The College cannot be a deliberative body, as the electors of each state meet in the capital of their state. That is a constitutional requirement. There is no communication between the electors of two different states.

They can certainly deliberate among one another, in their state delegations. As a body entire? Maybe not.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 28, 2019, 01:17:32 PM »

The original assumption was that except in rare cases such as Washington, the Electoral College would serve as a nominating body and that most Presidents would be elected by the House and most Vice Presidents by the Senate.
Logged
Helsinkian
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,824
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 01, 2019, 05:05:37 PM »

This ruling brings the electoral college back to its constitutional roots.  The EC was expected to be a deliberative body that voted for the best person free of the "emotions" of the campaign.
Still it will continue to be incredibly rare for an elector to vote against the state result.



The College cannot be a deliberative body, as the electors of each state meet in the capital of their state. That is a constitutional requirement. There is no communication between the electors of two different states.

In the 1700s that requirement prevented them from communicating. But in the 2000s with Skype, WhatsApp etc. they can obviously talk to the electors of other states in the weeks prior to the electors voting if they so wish.
Logged
Xeuma
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 711
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: 0.00

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 01, 2019, 06:47:15 PM »

This ruling brings the electoral college back to its constitutional roots.  The EC was expected to be a deliberative body that voted for the best person free of the "emotions" of the campaign.
Still it will continue to be incredibly rare for an elector to vote against the state result.



The College cannot be a deliberative body, as the electors of each state meet in the capital of their state. That is a constitutional requirement. There is no communication between the electors of two different states.

In the 1700s that requirement prevented them from communicating. But in the 2000s with Skype, WhatsApp etc. they can obviously talk to the electors of other states in the weeks prior to the electors voting if they so wish.

Skype is against the eternal will of the Founders.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.034 seconds with 11 queries.