# Fed Court: Presidential electors can vote as they wish **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 22, 2019, 10:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046 "2019-08-22T10:58:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2019, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/21 "2019-08-22T16:21:29Z")
> [@Red\_Wiggler](#): > > How do, or did, Colorado Democrats choose their electors who will appear on the ballot and how did the Baca guy fall through the cracks? I guess I don’t really understand the mechanics of our convoluted system. The way I understand it, we (Americans in general) are voting for a slate of electors who are pledged to vote for one candidate or another. In other words, we’re not electing a President, we’re electing a bunch of guys who have said they’ll vote for one guy, or a different bunch of guys who have said they’ll vote for the other guy. So when they say that so-and-so won state X, they’re saying basically that the majority in that state voted for the slate of electors saying they’ll vote for so-and-so. But some weeks later, the electors themselves actually vote, and the results of that vote are what actually elects the President. The question that was asked of the Supreme Court is whether a state can decree that each individual elector abide by the results of the vote, or if they can go “rogue” so to speak, and vote for the other guy if they so desire. And the Supreme Court is basically saying that once they’re elected, they’re participating in a Federal electoral activity where the States themselves have no authority, and there’s no Constitutional requirement that the electors hold faith with the popular vote, so the electors can vote how they please without regard to what the State thinks. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2019, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/22 "2019-08-22T16:32:43Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > It may not fall under their jurisdiction. Once the elector is chosen it is out of their hands-presuming the bribery happens after that, it would then be a Federal case. It’s the states which make faithless elector laws. From the Op cite: _The decision, from a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, is a victory for Micheal Baca, a Colorado Democratic elector in 2016. Under state law, he was required to cast his ballot for Hillary Clinton, who won the state’s popular vote. Instead, he crossed out her name and wrote in John Kasich, a Republican and then the governor of Ohio._ ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2019, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/23 "2019-08-22T16:52:04Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I believe the state can still punish them, but their vote stands, which makes sense. No it doesn’t. Being thrown in jail for exercising a right is fucking nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2019, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/24 "2019-08-22T16:52:36Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > The reason I expect objections from the WH (and likely from Uncle Mitch) is that anything that diminishes or appears to diminish control over electors is sumpin’ the Pubbies aren’t gonna like. Mitch like everyone on a short leash. With a choke collar. Why assume this diminishes their control? If anything, I feel it gives the Republicans another tool to rig elections. Now they can completely ignore the results of the general election and work on controlling the way three hundred Electors vote. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2019, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/25 "2019-08-22T16:52:54Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > It’s the states which make faithless elector laws. > > From the Op cite: > _The decision, from a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, is a victory for Micheal Baca, a Colorado Democratic elector in 2016. Under state law, he was required to cast his ballot for Hillary Clinton, who won the state’s popular vote. Instead, he crossed out her name and wrote in John Kasich, a Republican and then the governor of Ohio._ That’s nice, but if you are talking _bribery_ after the elector is picked, then the Feds have jurisdiction. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2019, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/26 "2019-08-22T17:04:20Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > It’s the states which make faithless elector laws. > > From the Op cite: > _The decision, from a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, is a victory for Micheal Baca, a Colorado Democratic elector in 2016. Under state law, he was required to cast his ballot for Hillary Clinton, who won the state’s popular vote. Instead, he crossed out her name and wrote in John Kasich, a Republican and then the governor of Ohio._ I think you are totally missing the point of the OP and the link provided therein. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2019, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/27 "2019-08-22T17:05:10Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > The electoral college reflected the values and prevailing attitudes of the time, notably the belief among free, property-owning, wealthy elite white males that political power must remain in the hands of the elite class because the lower rungs of society are inherently unqualified to manage self-governance. While there may be some truth to the notion that democracy invites many unqualified citizens to participate, there is no evidence that an aristocratic class is capable of governing in the interests of broader society. Moreover, the EC, like other aspects of the original constitution, is squarely at odds with our modern social and political values and our understanding of what a modern democratic and egalitarian society ought to look like. > > But I don’t see anything or anyone changing it until the system breaks, and maybe that’s really what’s happening right now, and maybe that’s what Trumpism truly represents: the disintegration of the American republic as it has been defined by the Enlightenment era constitution. So perhaps it is the case that the system must first fail incontrovertibly in the eyes of the average person before there can be sufficient critical mass needed to transform America from an Enlightenment republic into something more advanced. No. It avoids the problema of a few cities on both coasts determining the results of a federal election. It is exactly the opposite of what you said, it gives more access to minorities. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2019, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/28 "2019-08-22T17:09:44Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > No. It avoids the problema of a few cities on both coasts determining the results of a federal election. It is exactly the opposite of what you said, it gives more access to minorities. “Cities” don’t determine popular vote elections – voters do. In a popular vote election, each and every voter in rural parts of America has exactly the same voting power as a single voter in coastal cities. All voters would have exactly the same voting power. Right now, voters in California and Texas have virtually no influence on who becomes President, while voters who are lucky enough to live in swing states have much more influence. The first option seems much more fair, as well as representative of popular will, to me. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2019, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/29 "2019-08-22T17:13:26Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Why assume this diminishes their control? If anything, I feel it gives the Republicans another tool to rig elections. Now they can completely ignore the results of the general election and work on controlling the way three hundred Electors vote. Maybe I’m completely missing the boat, but I see this ruling (if it stands) as turning the electors into a bunch of wild cards, subject to no one’s control. If they have consciences, that could be a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2019, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/30 "2019-08-22T17:17:37Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Why assume this diminishes their control? If anything, I feel it gives the Republicans another tool to rig elections. Now they can completely ignore the results of the general election and work on controlling the way three hundred Electors vote. Why can’t the Democrats want to rig elections too? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2019, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/31 "2019-08-22T17:22:32Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > Maybe I’m completely missing the boat, but I see this ruling (if it stands) as turning the electors into a bunch of wild cards, subject to no one’s control. If they have consciences, that could be a good thing. I don’t see any evidence that the conscience of those 538 electors will be any better than the conscience of the 153 million they represent. On the other hand it seems likely that it would be easier to manipulate 538 electors than it would 153 million voters…especially now that state control has been stripped away. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2019, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/32 "2019-08-22T17:24:01Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > “Cities” don’t determine popular vote elections – voters do. In a popular vote election, each and every voter in rural parts of America has exactly the same voting power as a single voter in coastal cities. All voters would have exactly the same voting power. Right now, voters in California and Texas have virtually no influence on who becomes President, while voters who are lucky enough to live in swing states have much more influence. The first option seems much more fair, as well as representative of popular will, to me. If you want to get semantic, then, we can say that it’s the ink on the paper or the electrons on the machine what decides elections. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2019, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/33 "2019-08-22T17:26:20Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > No. It avoids the problema of a few cities on both coasts determining the results of a federal election. It is exactly the opposite of what you said, it gives more access to minorities. And replaces it with the problem of our elections being decided by a whote paste in the middle of the country. There is more diversity of interests between the different neighborhoods of the city of Los Angeles, then there is between the states of Montana, Wyoming and North and South Dakota. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2019, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/34 "2019-08-22T17:31:54Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > If you want to get semantic, then, we can say that it’s the ink on the paper or the electrons on the machine what decides elections. No, one person, one vote isn’t “semantics.” “Semantics” is making the case that the majority of voters should find their results disproportionately reduced by an arcane system of squiggles and geography. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2019, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/35 "2019-08-22T17:34:16Z")
Ok, I’m still not getting something. If this Baca guy had gotten to be an elector because he pledged to vote for Clinton, either somebody didn’t do their due diligence or we’ve okayed false representation among the people ultimately responsible for determining the most powerful position in the country. Does this strike anyone else as being way screwy? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2019, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/36 "2019-08-22T17:38:17Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > And replaces it with the problem of our elections being decided by a whote paste in the middle of the country. There is more diversity of interests between the different neighborhoods of the city of Los Angeles, then there is between the states of Montana, Wyoming and North and South Dakota. “Whote paste”? The only definition I can find for “whote” says it is slang for homosexual prostitute…and now “whote paste” is something I’m going to have to drink heavily to forget. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2019, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/37 "2019-08-22T17:50:25Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Two courts with differing decisions. Plop. Right in the laps of the Supreme Court. SCOTUS does not care overmuch about different results reached by state versus federal courts on federal questions; the federal court’s decision controls (at least within that circuit). If the decisions directly conflict, it doesn’t matter what the WA Supreme Court thinks because it’s an issue of federal constitutional law. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2019, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/38 "2019-08-22T18:10:54Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I don’t see any evidence that the conscience of those 538 electors will be any better than the conscience of the 153 million they represent. On the other hand it seems likely that it would be easier to manipulate 538 electors than it would 153 million voters…especially now that state control has been stripped away. Well, what if in the last election, the electors had decided to make the electoral college vote reflect the popular vote? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2019, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/39 "2019-08-22T18:16:56Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > Well, what if in the last election, the electors had decided to make the electoral college vote reflect the popular vote? With or without undue influence? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2019, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046/40 "2019-08-22T19:16:18Z")
> [@Red\_Wiggler](#): > > Ok, I’m still not getting something. If this Baca guy had gotten to be an elector because he pledged to vote for Clinton, either somebody didn’t do their due diligence or we’ve okayed false representation among the people ultimately responsible for determining the most powerful position in the country. Does this strike anyone else as being way screwy? According to interviews with him, he changed his mind after the election in November. He was trying to encourage enough electoral voters, particularly Republicans, not to vote for Trump to deny him the majority. I guess he had to prove his good faith (ha!) to those Republican electoral voters by voting for Kasich. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fed-court-presidential-electors-can-vote-as-they-wish/839046.md?page=3)