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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
“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.
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.
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.