"The petitioner in the Washington case, Peter Chiafolo, was elected as a presidential elector when Hillary Clinton won that state’s popular vote in 2016 but voted for Colin Powell instead, which led to a $1,000 fine for violating a state law that required him to vote for the presidential and vice-presidential candidates who won the majority of the popular votes. The respondent in the Colorado case, Micheal Baca, was removed as an elector after he attempted to vote for John Kasich, even though Clinton won the popular vote in Colorado as well. Chiafolo told the justices that the question has real-world importance in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election: In 2016, he noted, 'ten of the 538 presidential electors either cast presidential votes other than the nominees of their party' or tried to do so but were replaced. A similar swing would 'have changed the results in five of fifty-eight prior elections,' he added."
Explains SCOTUSblog.
Wow! The answer had better be that these laws are constitutional or all hell will break loose! What if the electors have a constitutionally based power to make up their own minds and apply their personal judgment? It's one thing for them to think they might and to contemplate going off on their own and for some of them, occasionally, to do it. It would be quite another thing for the Supreme Court to enshrine this power in constitutional law, to specifically give the electors the go-ahead!
And how would we, the humble voters feel if we found out that we're not voting for Donald Trump or Biden/Sanders/Warren/Bloomberg but for some local character who's free to do what he/she thinks is best? There would be another dimension of analysis. Some person we haven't cared at all about will need to be scrutinized for iron-clad party fealty. Horrible!
On the other hand, for those who hate the Electoral College and have felt bad about the seeming impossibility of amending the Constitution to change it, the crazy chaos of constitutionally empowered electors could be horrible enough to push the states to ratify an abolition of the Electoral College.
ADDED: I don't think people realize the benefits of the Electoral College. After the 2000 election, I read 2 books on the reform movement that got traction after the 1960 election. I wrote about what I learned in "Electoral College Reform: Déjà Vu." It's short. A lot shorter than the 2 books, and those books made me see why it's not a good idea to abolish the Electoral College.
AND: From my little article — I had forgotten this — "Looking at the faithless elector 'problem' from another angle, consider the plan of novelist James A. Michener, who was a Pennsylvania elector pledged to Democratic candidate Hubert H. Humphrey, to switch to Nixon if that were necessary to deprive [George] Wallace of a majority. James A. Michener, Presidential Lottery: The Reckless Gamble in Our Electoral System 16, 56 (1969)."
ALSO: I added a link on that James A. Michener book title, because it's still available. You can buy it on Amazon, even in Kindle. Maybe I'll read that! I like to read the bad reviews at Amazon. In this case: "This book is a disappointment, so precise and so much information that does not mean much and it goes on and on and on about nothing. Did not enjoy it at all." LOL. I love "so precise" as a complaint. Stop with all the precision, James! There. I put it in my Kindle. No audiobook for this one, so we shall see if I can get through a "boring" book. I'll try. Worth it, because the faithless elector problem is before the Supreme Court.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१४० टिप्पण्या:
Wow! The answer had better be that these laws are constitutional or all hell will break loose!
Understatement.
I’ll go read that law review article. But before I do, I will say, you’re right, abolishing the Electoral College is a bad idea.
So of course, there are leftist that want to do just that.
But of course, to some on the left merely voting for Trump is racist and illegal.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-voters-motivated-racism-may-be-violating-constitution-can-they-ncna1110356
I don’t see why the electoral college system requires actual electors to mechanically make official what the democratic vote in that state directs them to do. Just cut out the middleman and have the electoral votes go to the popular vote getter as the system was designed to have happen.
But the faithless elector seems like a really odd problem to have. If the winning party can’t find people who hold the view that is held by a large majority of its own members, then it’s too incompetent for words.
Althouse said ...
And how would we, the humble voters feel if we found out that we're not voting for Donald Trump or Biden/Sanders/Warren/Bloomberg but for some local character who's free to do what he/she thinks is best?
This has always been the case. It has always been a ridiculous undemocratic system.
Serious question: Does the Constitution require a state to have a presidential election at all? Can a state's legislature simply choose its electors directly?
I never really understood it.
It seems like we elect anonymous people we call electors that vote in our stead.
The other problem I have is the 2 parties (rep and dem) run State primaries, and are free to do as they see fit, as we saw in 2016.
I understand it's never been a problem before, but we have a new breed of anarchists that call themselves democrats.
“ Serious question: Does the Constitution require a state to have a presidential election at all? Can a state's legislature simply choose its electors directly?”
Yes. The last state to do that was Colorado in 1876. Before the Civil War there were various ways of selecting the electors involving both popular vote, legislative vote, and even some combination of the two. I think the first election in which all electors were selected by popular vote was 1880.
Ann:
There is a Harvard L. Rev. article that proposes to create 127 new states out of DC neighborhoods in order to, inter alia, get rid of the Electoral College. Seriously.
And, of course, the Dems would rule.
Those little Harvard pricks setup some straw men and find their idea to be a great one and perfectly constitutional.
States secede, is why. They have to get enough say about the federal government to make it worth staying in the union. You've got more people but we've got our land.
Thanks MountainMan. It looks to me like this is the kind of case that separates those that really believe in the Constitution, versus those that simply desire to interpret the Constitution in whatever way is necessary to get what they think is good policy. That is, I agree with our hostess that all hell might break loose if we interpret the Constitution to mean that states have great leeway in choosing their electors, but once chosen, those electors get to do whatever the hell they want. But, I went back and read Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3, and that appears to be EXACTLY what the Constitution requires, whether we like it or not.
This suggests a plausible path to the White House for Mike Bloomberg...
I don't think most electors would turn faithless for $10k, but $10M each?
clint said...
This suggests a plausible path to the White House for Mike Bloomberg...
I don't think most electors would turn faithless for $10k, but $10M each?
Interesting question. What inducements would be legal? It doesn't just have to be cash.
Constitution to mean that states have great leeway in choosing their electors, but once chosen, those electors get to do whatever the hell they want. But, I went back and read Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3, and that appears to be EXACTLY what the Constitution requires, whether we like it or not.
I'm sure there was sound rationale behind it at the time. I'm at a loss on what that would have been.
I mean, if we say they don't have to vote as they promised to do so, then the popular vote compact is unconstitutional as well.
Frankly, on a basic level, I think it kind-of, sort-of makes sense, but on a practical level, no one treats it as if I'm "voting for Bill who says he'll vote for Clinton," we're "voting for Clinton and saying Bob is the guy who will fill out the paperwork." If we treat the electors as just another politician, then I see a lot of bad things happening in the future.
"It has always been a ridiculous undemocratic system."
-- And yet, an extremely effective *republican* system of government.
Abolish the EC?
Like, we're so much smarter than those 1787 delegates. What did they know anyway?
I doubt it will be a problem this time for Trump as his campaign did not have a good read on state electors. The next time they should havce a good read on all who want to be Republican electors.
The electoral college is what makes elections rational and precise. That is why lefists like ARM are all excited at this.
Of course, NONE of this will matter soon.
since a state's legislature can simply choose its electors directly; the NEW PLAN IS:
States in the 270 compact will look and see how the voters in LA county voted.
whoever wins the popular vote there, will receive the electoral college votes from all the states in the compact. Since there will be (at least) 270 electoral votes tied up in the 270 compact, this will mean that the winner of the popular vote in LA county will be our next President.
This is Actually GOOD. Since only the votes in LA county will matter; politicians won't have to waste their precious time in wastewater shitholes, like Wisconsin or Iowa
"Those little Harvard pricks setup some straw men and find their idea to be a great one and perfectly constitutional."
Sounds like A Modest Proposal to me.
The whole electors thing makes no sense at all, and is blatantly obviously undemocratic. Indeed, it makes ones voting slip (or whatever they call it) a complete lie if your vote is not actually for the person named on that slip.
As someone who became a US citizen, the benefits of the electoral college are quite obvious, and those who wish to ban it are ignorant, uneducated, unintelligent, deliberately nasty, or all of the above.
Imagine a whole state voting for Trump, but the legislators saying that they are going to ignore that, and put all the votes for Biden, because that’s what California and New York want. Or, 90% of the states vote for Trump, but Cali goes for Biden, but the Cali legislature throws them all Trumps way. Neither are valid, but the Democrats would support the former but would slam the latter.
Blogger Browndog said...
.... I'm sure there was sound rationale behind it at the time. I'm at a loss on what that would have been.
That they wanted a layer between the will of the populace and who got to be President, because they didn't trust the populace to make that decision directly.
Harsh Pencil: Nice comment and I agree. However, I don’t see how the binding of electors can be considered unconstitutional. States have the power, as you point out, by II.1.2 to appoint the electors as the Legislature directs, so they should be able to bind them to their pledge according to the popular vote if that is what they want to do.
In a discussion with some co-workers back in 2000 I wondered if the FL legislature could have just enacted legislation that the whole election was invalid and they appointed the electors directly and been done with it. That might have been controversial but really there doesn’t appear to be anything constitutionally that says they could not have done that. Professor Althouse or other constitutional experts on here might disagree.
At the same time, I think the current National Popular Vote Compact, if an attempt is ever made to put it into effect, would be found to be unconstitutional and there would be several paths that the courts could take to invalidate it. I think this is just the first shot in probably several years to come of court challenges as progressives try to find ways to circumvent the Electoral College since there is no chance of an amendment ever being approved to eliminate it. The EC has served us well and should never be replaced.
Blogger MountainMan said...
Harsh Pencil: Nice comment and I agree. However, I don’t see how the binding of electors can be considered unconstitutional. States have the power, as you point out, by II.1.2 to appoint the electors as the Legislature directs, so they should be able to bind them to their pledge according to the popular vote if that is what they want to do.
Here I disagree. The framers could have had the States vote directly for President with the same number of votes as under our actual Constitution (one vote for each Senator and Representative). But they didn't. They purposely set up this system where the States chose electors, actual people as opposed to pieces of paper with votes written on them, with instructions on how these actual people were to meet and vote and so forth. This to me means they saw actual people with free will and all that it entails as vital to the scheme.
If the electors refuse to cast their ballot according to the majority vote count of the citizens for each state, why not cancel the citizens vote altogether and just let the "electors" vote for the POTUS?
Who would like that?
"This to me means they saw actual people with free will and all that it entails as vital to the scheme."
-- I mean, yes. "A representative owes the People not only his industry, but his judgment," so the question really is: Are the electors actually representatives or simple functionaries?
"It would be quite another thing for the Supreme Court to enshrine this power in constitutional law"
With good sense the justices, well, at least the ones with a sense of common sense and tradition, won't peek into the "Emanations from Penumbras" file box.
Because if they're representatives, I'd rather get rid of the fiction that we're voting for Donald Trump or a Democrat To Be Named Later, and just put the electors' information out there and have an honest vote where I can judge "if I vote for Bob, do I think Bob will REALLY deliver on his campaign promise to cast a ballot for X?" And, if they're just functionaries, then you need to quash a faithless elector as fast as you'd quash any other government functionary who refuses to do what they were chosen to do.
As I've stated before, President is the only national constituency office for which we vote. Popular election would require uniform national regulation, administration, and enforcement of voting every step of the way from registration through certification of the vote counts. All for one office. Anything less would call the election's legitimacy into question. As each of us know from our own experience, maintaining sufficient trust in the uniformity of statewide voting is difficult enough.
By limiting the total votes to a fixed number, and apportioning those votes to the several states, the electoral college limits the mischief that any one state may create to its number of electoral votes. Can you imagine the voting "arms race" among the states that would be unleashed by popular election of the President? Votes exceeding the number of registered voters might become commonplace rather than exceptional.
The founders went with the idea of electors from each state because Massachusetts and New York had the vast majority of citizens and the founders were afraid that the POTUS would always be decided from those 2 states and the other 11 would have no say in a Presidential election.
Per the Constitution, electors can vote however they like. Whether that is desirable or not is not the issue.
But yes, this is catnip to those who want to abolish the Electoral College because Trump.
Electors are public officials and can be prosecuted, fined and jailed for bribery.
The electoral college puts firewalls between recounts. There's no national recount.
Remember, our form of government is a constitutional republic, not a true democracy.
There should be a prohibition on electors named Chad.
Electors can also be shot for faithlessness, by the more outraged betrayed voters. Those will need secret service protection.
The faithless elector secret service detail.
Massachusetts and New York had the vast majority of citizens
I think you mean Virginia and Pennsylvania.
rhhardin said...
Electors are public officials and can be prosecuted, fined and jailed for bribery.
Are they on public payroll? If not then they would be free to do what they like.
The constitution and the intent of its framers are pretty clear. It was intended that the electors be free agents. Our current system is a perversion of the constitution and the framer's intent.
I actually agree. The electors are clearly intended to be ABLE to be faithless. It is sort of akin to jury nullification; the people given the duty ALSO have the choice to say:"Nah."
Now, is this a GOOD policy is a different thing. I think you need that safety valve, and being able to recruit faithful electors is a basic competency test like being able to get signatures to get your name on a ballot. But, what I'm actually afraid is that if we let them be faithless, we have to treat them like they might be. And that means that most of these people who are relatively normal nobodies are going to be fully scrutinized, and I assure you, electors will find their lives turned upside down and shamed. It won't be pretty.
I guess it comes back to this. It always comes back to this:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
The constitution and the intent of its framers are pretty clear. It was intended that the electors be free agents
Then why have the citizens participate in the election of the POTUS?
"Then why have the citizens participate in the election of the POTUS?"
-- Because things have moved on. We've moved on from that to a more direct (but not a fully popular vote) system. The same is true of Senators. I wonder how the election system would change if instead of voting for X, I had to vote for various slates of electors? Or would I have to vote for X individual electors, where X=the number of electoral votes for my state?
If an elector said: "I will vote for the presidential candidate that promises Y," is that a quid pro quo, or is that just politicians being politicians?
Considering the voting electorate is more concerned with who is playing the half time at the Super Bowl, than how our electoral system works, they can be easily manipulated to be for whatever they are told to be for. Or object to whatever they are told to object to.
This is a seriously important case for the SC and comes at a time when the Dems are telling their people that Electoral College = Bad. But don't worry, Jennifer Lopez is doing half time at the Super Bowl.
Tim Maguire said: I don’t see why the electoral college system requires actual electors to mechanically make official what the democratic vote in that state directs them to do.
It is a relic from the days of horse and buggy times. When there were no roads. No telegraph. No quick mail services. It too days to just go to the next county much less from Maine and Georgia to a central meeting place.
On the other hand. It is more reliable than the internet that can be hacked by anonymous sources in other countries and locally. Faithless Electoral College voters can be personally identified.
And then shot. You think I'm kidding. The Bernie Bros want to put us all into Gulags and reeducation camps. What will they do to those who voted against Bernie if he did win the votes from the people. He was already "cheated" out of his votes by the Democrat Super Delegate system. You want that Nationwide???
That's just the tip of the iceberg. It would be the beginning of the end to remove the Electoral College. Why would Montana, for instance, want to be in the US if everything they voted for was decided by California or New York.
Chaos and worse.
DBQ said ...
The Bernie Bros want to put us all into Gulags and reeducation camps.
yes, BUT! it turns out; they weren't 'THAT' bad, your wife could come with; and they'd feed you. And you'd get Paid a small stipend for your labors (which, could be used to pay room and board fees)
All in All; after hearing that Bernie Bro's description of Stalin's Gulags, they sounded Nice!
Nicer than the Bernie Bro's vision for the Rest of the Country, that is : )
The EC should be replaced by a simple mechanism. Every representative district gets one electoral vote. It goes to the winner of the election in that district. Every state gets 2 votes for their senators and those votes go to the winner of a state. No plurality votes are allowed for the final winner. That must be by a binary vote.
The framers didn't want to be in the position the King had just been in, trying to force unwilling states to be part of a nation they no longer wanted to be part of.
Administration without representation would not be conducive to a stable society.
I don't how resolving this issue can only be done by abolishing the Electoral College.
That seems to be an entirely different issue.
The vast majority of electors are foot soldiers of their party. Being picked as an elector is the "employee of the month" prize, perhaps with a better parking space.
That has resulted in faithful electors for almost all involved.
But the direction we are going (next stop Hell, all must depart), with vehement hate for the slightest difference, that may change.
Suppose a D candidate received a narrow win in electoral votes. But then a Kavenaugh like story involving racism came out. Of course in my scenario there would have to be SOME credibility to the story. The D party, making sure the electors "look like America" would face the potential revolt of a sizable number of electors. Even if they did not cross party lines, they could turn the election.
Yikes!
I'm pretty sure the founders had seen plenty "Clintons" in their own histories so as to provide the chance for "Trumps" to appear. The founders appear to have balanced things out fairly well in their documents. Browndog @7:29 re-stated the fundamental premise.
Dust Bunny Queen said:
"...chaos and worse."
That is their desired result. Everything for decades now has been laid out slowly and persistently to change the very fabric of America. The 1619 Project? That's from the 'paper of record' and completely foreseeable. The schools were rendered indoctrination centers years ago. Ever talk to one of your kids teachers? If you did, you'd pull them out of their school.
They want chaos and worse. They are working toward chaos and worse. And they may yet get chaos and worse, but I'm not sure it'll end the way they see it happening.
Not threatening. Just observing the landscape.
Option two:
In the dimly lit room she sits and sips her wine. All night she has been plotting how to turn 270 electors to be with her.
A bribe here. An arm twisted there. Hidden secrets to reveal. Yes, yes, I'm at 214 already. Now let's factor in the untimely deaths.
The courts already shot down the Colorado law that said the electors had to vote for the winner of the national popular vote, citing the State cannot compel the electors who to vote for.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Yep. And that possiblity is gone right now. We have to slice off the crazy coastal bits.
At the time the Constitution was written, and for quite long time thereafter, there were no organized national political parties, and in fact, such was considered to be very bad things. Thus, it was all about individual persons and these were not even supposed to do anything as low as running for office, but were to be drafted for this duty by their fellow citizens.
"Our current system is a perversion of the constitution and the framer's intent."
Explain yourself and then see Browndogs post.
A lot of people seem to lose sight of who the president is responsible to. It is not the people, that's the House's job. It's not the states, that's the Senate.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
There is no constitutional requirement for any popular vote as several have pointed out. Not is there any need. A popular vote may even be against the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution.
The president is not supposed to serve the "people". Why should they have any say in choosing them?
John Henry
Jarid Polis(D) wants to give all Colorado votes to CA.
People keep quoting the constitution, but always ignore the 10th amendment.
The President was never supposed to have this much power, Thus the EC has taken on outsized importance. All of these kerfuffles are moot, of the people and the States take back their constitutional power
Ot but:
The other day I looked up the party that any officer or enlisted swears on entering the military.
It to is to the constitution, not to the USA, the country or anything else.
The reason I looked it up was because I was wondering about England. Looking up their oath, it is to the queen. And not just to the queen but specifically to "queen Elizabeth"
John Henry
So, should the electoral votes for Sanders be assigned to his fictional Democratic Socialists party?
What if the electors have a constitutionally based power to make up their own minds and apply their personal judgment? It's one thing for them to think they might and to contemplate going off on their own and for some of them, occasionally, to do it. It would be quite another thing for the Supreme Court to enshrine this power in constitutional law, to specifically give the electors the go-ahead!
Why? You do know that this was exactly why the Electoral College was created right?
I've seen no mention in the Megxit commentary that because she's still an American citizen, her UK title is illegitimate. No one takes the US Constitution seriously anymore, not even "princesses."
Constitution to mean that states have great leeway in choosing their electors, but once chosen, those electors get to do whatever the hell they want. But, I went back and read Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3, and that appears to be EXACTLY what the Constitution requires, whether we like it or not.
I'm sure there was sound rationale behind it at the time. I'm at a loss on what that would have been.
The rationale was to limit the effects of democracy. If you are on the Left. or the GOP Establishment, it was to prevent people like Trump from being elected.
The reason I looked it up was because I was wondering about England. Looking up their oath, it is to the queen. And not just to the queen but specifically to "queen Elizabeth"
And when she dies, they will all swear a new oath to her successor.
The President should be chosen by journalists who cover politics. They're the experts.
The constitution and the intent of its framers are pretty clear. It was intended that the electors be free agents. Our current system is a perversion of the constitution and the framer's intent.
The first and biggest mistake was creating the Bill of Rights. It changed our Constitution from being a list of enumerated powers, to a list of things the government couldn't do, and they could do everything else. For instance, the Second Amendment wasn't needed. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the government the power to restrict or prevent gun ownership. Therefore, if the original meaning of the Constitution was preserved, the government would not have the ability to regulate or prevent gun ownership.
Instead of calling them faithless, if the electors are able to vote for whomever they please they are independent.
Gahrie said...
The first and biggest mistake was creating the Bill of Rights. It changed our Constitution from being a list of enumerated powers, to a list of things the government couldn't do, and they could do everything else.
Interesting perspective. People in most western countries envy the 1st amendment, we have freer speech than they do because of this amendment. Their governments do not feel constrained by their constitutions to avoid limiting free speech.
This might be a great move for the Democrats if they can get it through. Just think of all those LLRs lurking about in the state Republican apparatus that are appointed electors that hate Trump.
Gahrie is merely arguing from the losing side and the constitutional debate over the Bill of Rights. Theoretically I agree with the position but in practical terms, we have seen how politicians abuse the law in the Constitution to worm their controls over every little thing. Without the limitations in the Bill of Rights things would be much much worse, including zero gun rights in my opinion
Excellent article, Ann. It is one that needs to be circulated in today’s political climate.
Howard said...
Just think of all those LLRs lurking about in the state Republican apparatus that are appointed electors that hate Trump.
Everyone hates Trump - it is just a question of whether or not they are willing to admit it to themselves.
Everyone hates Trump - it is just a question of whether or not they are willing to admit it to themselves.
Delusions are not good for you,. ARM. Next you will be walking naked through Miami Airport. Or was that you ?
"And how would we, the humble voters feel if we found out that we're not voting for Donald Trump or Biden/Sanders/Warren/Bloomberg but for some local character who's free to do what he/she thinks is best?"
And this is different from the clowns we vote for for Congress why?
Instead of calling them faithless, if the electors are able to vote for whomever they please they are independent.
If you understood how the presidential election worked, Howard, you would know the electors pledged to vote for the candidate they're representing.
The typical qualifications for a presidential elector include current membership in the party, current voter registration, and a pledge to vote for the party’s presidential ticket. No matter the selection method, a slate of alternates is usually selected in case electors are unable to fulfill their duties. Another common feature of state elector laws is the allowance for electors to select replacements by majority vote in case of unexpected absences.
Look it up, Howard.
as I understand it, the bill of rights wasn't applied to the states, till later, 'it is about what the State cannot do to you, for example in soviet Russia, there was freedom of worship, which is not the same as freedom of religion, the State could determine
My impression is so many of these crazy proposals (faithless electors, more states, popular vote) do not appeal to their proponents for any reason except that they are seen as a way to defeat Trump. Or that Trump would have lost had these proposals been in place in 2016. But the proponents rarely show any evidence that they have a defensible principle behind their proposals, nor do they appear to have considered the possibility that the new system will be manipulated by Republicans or conservatives to achieve an outcome that would horrify the proponents. Imagine the wails of horror we would hear if a majority of states adopt the "popular vote, not state vote" method of assigning electors, and in the next election, the conservative Republican wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote as it would have been traditionally measured. (Perhaps I should not have included popular vote on my list because I can see an easily identifiable principle underlying that. But I don't believe the impetus for that proposal is anything other than TDS.)
It would be quite another thing for the Supreme Court to enshrine this power in constitutional law, to specifically give the electors the go-ahead!
And how very timely!
Doc Dipshit, I posed a hypothetical if they were not restricted by state law, which is the nub of the case. You just like faithless because it makes it sound naughty.
We can pretty much figure out how the SCOTUS will vote. The liberal bloc will vote the way that favors the Democrat party and the Left. So, what is the current "Party Line"? Is it to destroy the EC at any price? Or is it, hey the EC will turn in the D's favor, so keep it sane and state Electors have to vote for their pledged candidate?
As for the Conservative/Moderate Judges, 4 of them will vote for common sense and the Constitution. BUT They're is ALWAYS a maverick. Would Roberts break and vote with the Liberals? Its possible. Or maybe Kavanaugh will try to make a name for himself and win some Liberal love.
I love people skimming through the Constitution and deciding it means X. LOL!
What you think means shit. The only thing that matters is what the Nine SCOTUS judges think. And what the case law laws. the fact that you took 1 minute to read it, and decided it means X, is meaningless.
I predict SCOTUS will not overturn the current traditional way. Too controversial. May ultimately threaten backlash to reduce courts plenary powers
Rcocean is arguing with herself
Another question is this. Lets say the SCOTUS declares that electors have a right to be faithless. So what then? We can't have that, so how does it get fixed? BTW, this is a perfect example of a "Tradition" that isn't spelled out but everyone has more or less followed since 1836. And what means is the Left will NOT FOLLOW Tradition if the stakes are high enough for them. Which means it needs to be codified into law or a SCOTUS decision.
The Center-right ALWAYS follows Tradition, the Left never does unless it benefits them.
So Michener was a Commie? I would never have guessed.
Howard the troll is trolling. Aren't you a big tough Marine Howard. Another guy on the internet who's 6-4 and 240 lbs? Or am I mixing you up with the other trolls? BTW, no one on the internet is 5-4. Its like Lake Woebegon where everyone is above average.
James Michener *was* a leftist - not a commie. He also left most of his money to some Atheist outfit, he didn't like Christianity for some reason. However, he was a clever liberal, and only pushed his views to the extent his audience would accept them. As the USA moved left in the 60s and 70s he became more explicit about his Leftism. But if you read his books, he can see he was pushing "The Party Line" as early as "Hawaii" and "Tales of the South Pacific".
Rcocean has that Shitting Thomas hare trigger. Just keep telling yourself it's not the wand, it's the magician.
I'm sure there was sound rationale behind it at the time. I'm at a loss on what that would have been.
The reason is federalism and a proper state-national government balance. Like the Senate, the president was/is supposed to be elected by the states, not the people directly.
So-called "faithless electors" are no worse than faithless legislators who promise one thing during a campaign and then act against the voters when elected.
Howard said...
Doc Dipshit, I posed a hypothetical if they were not restricted by state law, which is the nub of the case. You just like faithless because it makes it sound naughty.
Howards just hates to be shown ignorant.
as I understand it, the bill of rights wasn't applied to the states, till later,
The 14th Amendment and subsequent Supreme Court decisions have extended Bill of Rights protections to include the states.
Eliminating the EC will enable states like California to choose the President. Out here anyone with a driver license is encouraged to vote. If you don't believe it, try going to the DMV and observe what questions are asked and unasked.
From Federalist #69:
It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
Want some zzz's. Read Wickipedia's Electoral College (United States) on your phone cuz the DSL is out again. Very refreshing.
Someone already nailed this. If there was some underlying principle for rejecting a method that has served us well for the last 250 years, than some transient passion to get rid of Trump, it would be worth taking a fresh look. But nah. This is just liberal sour grapes that would be "revised" yet again when it blows up in their face. Constant craving for power at all cost is not a flattering look.
The inconsistency of liberal thinking is astounding.
First they want to insist that the United States is a Democracy where the popular vote counts.
Then they want to overrule the popular vote by allowing extra special non elected anonymous people to vote for the President despite what the popular vote in their State/region/district was.
Which is it? The votes of the people? or voting in secret by fiat?
Theoretically I agree with the position but in practical terms, we have seen how politicians abuse the law in the Constitution to worm their controls over every little thing. Without the limitations in the Bill of Rights things would be much much worse, including zero gun rights in my opinion
This is precisely my point however. The prevailing wisdom is that government can do anything that either judges or legislators can justify by manipulating language. Without the Bill of Rights, this wouldn't be a thing. All you would do is look at the Constitution, and see if it was on the list. If it was, federal government can; if it wasn't, federal government can't.
Just wait until the popular vote compact takes effect and a Republican wins the popular vote. Every elector from a blue state will become faithless.
Eliminating the Electoral College is an extreme remedy for the problem that Hillary's bone-headed campaign acted as though it didn't exist, and Trump's campaign acted as though it did.
Right now we are in a position in which the Supreme Court is claiming that 18th century gentlemen created a right to privacy, (even though they never used the word "privacy" and were know to fight for days over word choice and even punctuation.) and that this right to privacy includes the right to an abortion and gay marriage. But this was a secret, they apparently didn't tell anybody. Later on 19th century gentlemen then extended these rights to cover the states, again without using the word privacy, or telling anyone. This right to privacy was then discovered by 20th and 21st century judges, and they finally let the rest of us in on the secret.
Howard,
Are you crabby this morning? You were making sensible posts for a while, but now you are just trolling.
Remember what I wrote about fiber in your diet?
I haven't skimmed all the comments yet but it seems to me that the fundamental problem is that we now live in a society that doesn't penalize acting faithlessly, particularly in politics: a society in which an individual, who has pledged his sacred honor to do this, decides instead, for ideological or mercenary reasons, to do that. Am happy to agree with most of the arguments in favor of the continued use of the Electoral College and so on, but the bottom line remains that no society will long survive government by those who deny the virtue of religion, the need to rely on divine Providence, although it's obviously true that God only knows what 'long survive' means.
You want to know whether or not faithless electors are a real problem? I don't think so- just look at the election in 2000- just two faithless electors could have sent the election to the House, and three could have given it to Gore. And there was a pretty intense media campaign to get Bush electors to vote for Gore, but none did. There was only one faithless elector, and that guy just abstained even though he was pledged to Gore. You really only get faithless electors in elections where their votes aren't actually needed as pledged.
The advantage of allowing the electors to just do what they want is that Bloomberg only needs to spend $270 million on 270 electors to bribe himself into the presidency instead of $7 billion to buy 70 million votes.
I think the right decision will be that the states are free to bind or unbind their electors as they choose.
A more interesting question is probably going to come up at some point in the next decade- can states bind their electoral slate to vote for the popular vote winnner. Right now, I think the states that have entered this compact are all Democrat leaning, but still retain the same rules for determining which slate is appointed (the winner of the popular vote in the state). This will mean forcing Democrat electors to vote for the Republican if the Republican wins the national popular vote in most of those states. Good luck binding them to that decision- I predict every single one will become faithless with the full encouragement of their state.
The advantage of allowing the electors to just do what they want is that Bloomberg only needs to spend $270 million on 270 electors to bribe himself into the presidency instead of $7 billion to buy 70 million votes.
You're presumed to be choosing electors with integrity and honor.
I don't see how the National Popular Vote thing gets around the Interstate Compact Clause.
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress,..., enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State... . ARTICLE I, SECTION 10, CLAUSE 3 (with some unrelated other stuff ellipsed out).
I can see one State making its laws so that it must send a slate of electors pledged to vote for whoever, say, the Secretary of State of that State determines wins the "popular vote" but I can't see legislation making this effective only if enough other states do the same as constitutional. That's a compact between states (I'll do this if you do it too).
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;—The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;—The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.
You can see how some people complain about the drafting of the Constitution. This section describes a body whose purpose is to carry out the formal steps of electing the president, but neglects to specify that the electors must vote in the way that the state directs them to.
We've been very fortunate that we've never run into the kind of constitutional nightmare scenarios that would come from ruthlessly exploiting such loopholes.
I think that the best way to interpret that passage by far is the way that it always has been interpreted: the Electoral College is just a mechanical way of assembling the voting results from different states that has no independent power. Remember, it might take weeks to travel between different colonies!
If the nightmare scenario ever played out, you would expect the Supreme Court to step in and paper over the weak spot in the drafting by explicitly ruling that faithless electors aren't allowed, wouldn't you? The alternative would be too horrible to contemplate.
If the nightmare scenario ever played out, you would expect the Supreme Court to step in and paper over the weak spot in the drafting by explicitly ruling that faithless electors aren't allowed, wouldn't you? The alternative would be too horrible to contemplate.
Too horrible to contemplate? Haven't any of you read The Federalist? Read #69! Hell read my post above. The system was deliberately designed this way.
One advantage of the Electoral College is that it makes the final resolution of the election into a concrete event that happens in a specific time and place according to specified rules. Each Elector has one vote, the votes are tallied, and the winner is announced.
Suppose the states sent in their results by mail, and one state had a disputed election. Two groups send in different vote totals. Does the clerk receiving the letters adjudicate? Does Congress? The Supreme Court? With the Electoral College, those kinds of problems get settled at the state level and are resolved by the selection of the Elector and whatever state legislation governs his behavior.
What if the winning candidate dies before the election is certified, or before being inaugurated? Remember, Harrison died 31 days into his term. FDR was fading fast in 1945. Do you have to redo the election, or can the Electors cast their votes for the Vice President?
You can see how some people complain about the drafting of the Constitution. This section describes a body whose purpose is to carry out the formal steps of electing the president, but neglects to specify that the electors must vote in the way that the state directs them to.
Neglects?!? Hasn't anyone read The Federalist? There was no neglect. They intentionally designed the system this way!
We've been very fortunate that we've never run into the kind of constitutional nightmare scenarios that would come from ruthlessly exploiting such loopholes.
It's not a loophole! If you want to see Constitutional crisis...go read up on what happens when the election gets thrown into the House. Start with the election of 1800, then hit 1824 and 1876.
Harsh Pencil,
Yes, it would seem to fall afoul of the Interstate Compact Clause, but then it could be ratified by a Congress and President in the future, maybe as soon as January 21, 2021.
I have always thought the flaw could have been fixed by the states just moving ahead without a binding 270. Nothing seems to stop California, for example, just awarding the electoral votes next November to the popular vote winner. Of course, California doesn't do this because they want a situation where it is "heads I win, tails you lose". This is why I would expect the compact to break down the very instant a Republican wins the popular vote- it wouldn't even require such a candidate to have lost the old electoral college- it would be unthinkable to award the electoral votes to the loser in the state in that case.
Suppose the states sent in their results by mail, and one state had a disputed election. Two groups send in different vote totals
Already happened. 1876. Four states sent in two groups of electors. Result was one of the most corrupt political deals in American history. The Democrats agree to give the presidency to the Republicans, even though their guy should have won, and the Republicans ended Reconstruction, pulled Federal troops from the South and allowed the Democrats to impose Jim Crow.
Too horrible to contemplate? Haven't any of you read The Federalist? Read #69! Hell read my post above. The system was deliberately designed this way.
I think that a disputed election which was swung by a faithless elector, with the results being upheld by the Supreme Court, would very likely result in a civil war. The framers may not have anticipated that, since it didn't happen in classical Greece or Rome, but there are ample examples that have occurred more recently in weaker democracies.
What if the winning candidate dies before the election is certified, or before being inaugurated? Remember, Harrison died 31 days into his term. FDR was fading fast in 1945. Do you have to redo the election, or can the Electors cast their votes for the Vice President?
They can cast their votes for anybody who meets the qualifications set out in the Constitution for the office of president.
What if the winning candidate dies before the election is certified, or before being inaugurated? Remember, Harrison died 31 days into his term. FDR was fading fast in 1945. Do you have to redo the election, or can the Electors cast their votes for the Vice President?
They can cast their votes for anybody who meets the qualifications set out in the Constitution for the office of president.
Actually after thinking about it, they could actually vote for somebody who doesn't meet the qualifications, that person just couldn't take office.
Did the left have a problem with the Electoral College in 1992? No?
Why not?
Already happened. 1876. Four states sent in two groups of electors.
And the way that it was resolved was that Congress decided which groups of electors to accept. Once the delegation was accepted, the election was decided.
At some point, you have to assemble the votes and declare a winner. That has to be done by a person, or a small group of people. But there's no reason that group of people has to have independent power, and many good reasons for them not to.
All of this to and fro about electors and NPV and the electoral college (all instiguated by the Dems it seems, serprize, serprize), reminded me of the Massachusetts law change that blew back on them....
Remember the Scott Brown special election?
They should perhaps be careful what they wish for:
https://www.wickedlocal.com/article/20130120/NEWS/301209694
Ahem, "instigated"
"I don't see how the National Popular Vote thing gets around the Interstate Compact Clause."
It doesn't, but my reading of history shows that politicians will pass any law that gives them more power and suppresses dissenting voices.
You can see that by reading a book like "Girls Lean Back Everywhere," which is a fascinating survey of free speech battles from the attacks on colonial newspapers (including the one that slandered Jefferson for having a black mistress) to Lenny Bruce and George Carlin.
We just saw that when Obama issued the Title IX regulations that called for kangaroo "trials" of students convicted simply on the say-so of a girl who got laid and didn't get a phone call the next day. If a Republican president had issued that, we would have been lectured endlessly about how it deprived students of due process (as it did).
But, no, crickets, and universities gradually turned into hellholes of suppressive thought and acts. Thanks, Obama.
(Note: Yes, the GOP has had their share of censoring acts, like the ban on flag-burning.)
We've also been seeing the gradual heating of the lobster pot from liberals on the death penalty and abortion. They can't pass laws banning the death penalty and allowing free abortions, so they've gone through the courts. It's amazing how judges find convoluted ways of banning drugs that can kill inmates easily (much like we euthanize animals), forcing the use of more difficult remedies which cause the inmates agony. That gives them cause to scream about how inhuman it is to kill them that way, ommitting the fact that they caused this to happen.
If one thing American history has shown, it's that groups will push the boundaries of the Constitution as far as they can and ask, "What are you going to do about it?"
The National Voter Compact is a prime example. If that's upheld, the United States is over as a constitutional republic.
A law is only as powerful as the people's will and desire to enforce it.
I know an elector. It's a party emeritus type position. She got a shit ton of email and snail mail begging her not to vote for Trump.
But she wouldn't dare...
One point of divergence between my position and the Federalist papers position: I don't think that a faithless elector is being a statesman or representing the people who voted for him. I think it's much more likely that the elector is being a crank or (in the nightmare scenario of swinging an election) making a corrupt bargain with one of the candidates.
I’m FOR keeping the electoral college. I expected a poll. On this post I mean.
I think it's much more likely that the elector is being a crank or (in the nightmare scenario of swinging an election) making a corrupt bargain with one of the candidates.
Ask Andrew Jackson about that and then ask J Q Adams how that worked out for him in four years.
https://americanmind.org/essays/the-2016-election-the-1960-world-series-and-the-electoral-college/
In a parliamentary system, the prime minister is not chosen by popular vote. The premier is elected by members of parliament. Our Electoral College is like a one-time, one-vote parliament. The fact that electors are pledged to vote as their voters chose is a good system. However, I don't think it should be against the law for an elector to change his or her mind. Also, the electors names ought to be on the ballot just like they used to be in the 50's and 60's.
Keep the system but just award points equal to the number of electoral votes in each state.
"I know an elector. It's a party emeritus type position. She got a shit ton of email and snail mail begging her not to vote for Trump.
But she wouldn't dare..."
This can't be stressed enough. With the ability to immediately identify and make names of electors and other pertinent information about them go "viral", electors can be threatened and rightly fear for their lives/livelihoods when people get crazy. And with what is being ginned up with Trump now? Yeah. Faithless elector? Or terrified elector...
The situation has totally changed after 240 years, but the electoral college is still working fine just as the Framers intended.
I think it was after the 2000 census that the California Democrats crowed they had fixed the voting districts in California so that no Republican would ever again win statewide office.
We have not heard anything but bad news out of that state since.
Elliott A,
Bingo. Works for me!
And how would we, the humble voters feel if we found out that we're not voting for Donald Trump or Biden/Sanders/Warren/Bloomberg but for some local character who's free to do what he/she thinks is best?
And how’s that square with the national public vote compact? How should voters feel about CA, NY and IL or TX deciding where their votes go? Even if the electors vote for the state popular vote in violation of the compact, I can’t say they are being faithless.
"Rcocean has that Shitting Thomas hare trigger. Just keep telling yourself it's not the wand, it's the magician."
Howard the Troll. Drinking too early in the AM.
If they vote for your candidate, they are independent. If they vote against them, the are faithless.
Cool.
As long as they wear a suicide vest with an internet-linked remote control.
Gahrie,
I think you are right about swearing a new path when the monarch dies.
Strictly speaking it's not needed since the original path is to queen Elizabeth and her heirs and successors.
And we think it was outrageous when Hitler required the ss to swear loyalty to him personally.
It was, of course. But it's no less outrageous to require an oath of loyalty to queen Elizabeth personally.
Perhaps someone can explain the difference to me.
John Henry
Ann,
I really liked your article. I need to read it again to fully understand it but I learned a lot just on an initial reading.
Two quibbles
You say the president represents "the people" I can see an argument for that but I think he really represents the constitution and the grouping of sovereign "states" (as independent countries were called at the time)
You say better Henry Wallace than George Wallace. Odious as George Wallace was, i don't think a president G Wallace would have represented an existential threat to the USA in the way Henry Wallace would have.
President Henry wallace would not have been elected either. He would have become pies 2 months into fdr's 4th term and had almost 4 years with his hand on the throttle.
Truman was no prize and not particularly competent but at least he tried to uphold his path to the constitution.
We dodged a giant artillery shell she the dems kicked wallace off the ticket.
For the record, I am strongly against changing the electoral college system. I am also scared shirtless by democracy.
John Henry
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा