• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court says states can punish Electoral College voters

Now the EC has no purpose other than to let real estate potentially elect the loser. Time for it to go.
 
So, let me get this right.
An area can vote 90% in favour of a candidate from either side and the elector can just decide to vote for the candidate who got 10% and that's all fine and dandy?

That's the system you want to keep?
 
Metric Mouse said:
Wouldn't this be a slight blow to the NPV? After all, the point of the NPV is to make electors vote against their state's popular vote, if it doesn't align with other states popular vote; now electors that do that could be punished.
Click to expand...
I think you miss the gravamen of the process. The STATE gets to tell the electors how to vote. If the STATE law says that electors will vote in accordance with the NPV, that's it. That is how they vote. Do I like this decision? No, but I do see why both sides joined in it.

BTW, electors already vote differently than their voters voted. That is why most States use winner-take-all rather than proportional voting.
 
Ikari said:
There is still a point in that it balances the popular vote with the States still, I don't think we should go to a purely popular vote for the President. But it does significantly handicap the Electoral College and its purpose.
Click to expand...

There has always been the argument that we must support the Electoral College because it gives more influence to smaller states than they would have otherwise. But this isn't true at all. The electoral college 'winner-take-all' system doesn't favor small states as it does large toss-up states like Florida, Ohio and Michigan. These three states get a lot of attention from any presidential candidate. The rest of the states in this country don't have nearly as much focus placed on them.

Also, the place where the interests of small states is extremely well represented is the US Senate. If anything, small states -- with their equal representation in the Senate -- already have far too much power. A big state like Wyoming, with much less than 1 million people, get just as many US Senators as California, even though it has 50 times as many people. No single state should have 53 times more representation than another.

The main purpose of the Electoral College, was to balance the power between the Southern slave-owning States and the North. The rural South didn't want to be governed by the more populous North. The South's main income was cotton and they needed slaves to work the fields, they didn't want the slaves to be freed. To achieve this purpose, the Southern cotton states were allowed to have slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person. So, even if you were a slave, with no rights at all, you didn't count as a whole person. This gave the Southern states more representation in Congress and more votes in the Electoral College.
 
ludin said:
You didn't read your own article. Yes there have been faithless electors in the past they have amounted for a total of 1% of elector votes cast.
This last election there were 10 out of 538 electors that were faithless. that amounts to .02%

You can be a failthless elector if you are willing to accept the cost of doing so.
You have to have very good reason to be a faithless elector and being faithless should have nothing to do with your own politics.
Click to expand...

Well it's close to 2%, not 0.02%, lol. A few orders of magnitude off there.

But there shouldn't be a large cost to a properly functioning EC. While Faithless Electors have never flipped an election, it doesn't mean that the States should be able to punish the Faithless Elector anytime they want. They didn't just endorse some fine, they upheld a 1000 dollar fine assessed by Washington against its Faithless Electors, but it didn't say that it's limited to that. Colorado had recommended perjury charges against a Faithless Elector. Ultimately it didn't go forward with charges, but now we're in the realm where real criminal repercussions could occur from the Faithless Elector. But the Faithless Elector was a designed function of the EC. It's like saying a juror can vote Not Guilty because a law is unjust (Jury Nullification), but if they do, they may be fined or imprisoned. Guilty/Not Guilty and Jury Nullification are designed aspects of trial by a jury of peers. You can't just start punishing designed features of a system.
 
I don't see how the decision:
1. Weaponizes the EC
2. Strengthens the NPV argument
3. Destroys the NPV argument
4. Destroys the rationale for the EC

It simply said a state can penalize electors who do not vote for the candidate for which he or she was pledged.
 
Helix said:
Now the EC has no purpose other than to let real estate potentially elect the loser. Time for it to go.
Click to expand...
Depends on which state you live in.
 
Ikari said:
Faithless electors: Supreme Court says states can punish Electoral College voters - CNNPolitics



I will say that this is absolute bull****. There's no need for electors anymore because of this. The Faithless Elector was a fundamental, designed, and necessary dynamic of the Electoral College. Getting rid of them defeats part of the reason the EC is used. We've had faithless electors in the past, and it's always been part of the system, and it should have remained part of the system. I suppose we don't have to go through the hoopla of actually having electors anymore, since each State's votes will go as the State dictates they go as.
Click to expand...

The Supremes got it right.

It is up to the state to decide if an elector must vote according to the popular vote in their district or not. But if the state DOES decide the elector must...then the elector must. It's a state law. It's that simple.

Now...a state may decide they'd rather allow the elector to vote any way they want, regardless how their state citizens voted. Personally, I wouldn't bother to vote if I lived in that state. My vote would be meaningless.

Some people say get rid of the electors. I disagree. Just as we have individual state elections for president, preventing populous states from overwhelming the vote from less populous states, the electors...from various districts within a state...prevent populous areas within a state from overwhelming the vote from less populous areas.

The Founders got it right when they created the electoral system.
 
HumblePi said:
There has always been the argument that we must support the Electoral College because it gives more influence to smaller states than they would have otherwise. But this isn't true at all. The electoral college 'winner-take-all' system doesn't favor small states as it does large toss-up states like Florida, Ohio and Michigan. These three states get a lot of attention from any presidential candidate. The rest of the states in this country don't have nearly as much focus placed on them.

Also, the place where the interests of small states is extremely well represented is the US Senate. If anything, small states -- with their equal representation in the Senate -- already have far too much power. A big state like Wyoming, with much less than 1 million people, get just as many US Senators as California, even though it has 50 times as many people. No single state should have 53 times more representation than another.

The main purpose of the Electoral College, was to balance the power between the Southern slave-owning States and the North. The rural South didn't want to be governed by the more populous North. The South's main income was cotton and they needed slaves to work the fields, they didn't want the slaves to be freed. To achieve this purpose, the Southern cotton states were allowed to have slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person. So, even if you were a slave, with no rights at all, you didn't count as a whole person. This gave the Southern states more representation in Congress and more votes in the Electoral College.
Click to expand...

We're a Republic, built of the People and the Many States. It's why we have a House of Representatives and a Senate in the first place. A State is a State. California shouldn't have more power than Wyoming, they are both separate States which build the Republic. We compromised, we have the Popular Representation in the House, we have the State Representation in the Senate. I don't even agree that Senators should be popularly elected. There were issues with seating Senators which led to the amendment giving Senators to a popular vote, but I think we could have fixed the system without ceding Senators to the Population. The Senate is for the State. The House is for the People.

And the EC votes reflect that compromise. NYC, Chicago, and LA shouldn't dominate federal policy, they do not represent the whole of the Republic. They may have the most people, but the concerns of the big cities are different from the concerns of the rural States, and the rural States should not be dominated by the urban States. The idea is a better representation of the whole of the Republic, not just a few isolated States.

The EC itself wasn't made to balance power between the Slave owning States and the Free States, that was the 3/5's compromise. The founders battled hard on what should dominate, State Rights or Popular Drive. In the end, we compromised. The Republic is of the People, but the States entered into the contract and matter as well. On that front, the EC still serves a purpose. But we should also have Faithless Electors and we should emphasize the importance of them.
 
Ikari said:
Faithless electors: Supreme Court says states can punish Electoral College voters - CNNPolitics



I will say that this is absolute bull****. There's no need for electors anymore because of this. The Faithless Elector was a fundamental, designed, and necessary dynamic of the Electoral College. Getting rid of them defeats part of the reason the EC is used. We've had faithless electors in the past, and it's always been part of the system, and it should have remained part of the system. I suppose we don't have to go through the hoopla of actually having electors anymore, since each State's votes will go as the State dictates they go as.
Click to expand...

I agree with the court's decision. If you are swearing an oath to vote for the candidate the popular vote of the State has determined, then not doing so amounts to perjury at least and possibly fraud. Which means faithless electors should at least be fined, possibly even imprisoned (perjury comes with a maximum prison sentence of 10 years), and most certainly barred from ever being an Elector in the future.
 
Mycroft said:
The Supremes got it right.

It is up to the state to decide if an elector must vote according to the popular vote in their district or not. But if the state DOES decide the elector must...then the elector must. It's a state law. It's that simple.

Now...a state may decide they'd rather allow the elector to vote any way they want, regardless how their state citizens voted. Personally, I wouldn't bother to vote if I lived in that state. My vote would be meaningless.

Some people say get rid of the electors. I disagree. Just as we have individual state elections for president, preventing populous states from overwhelming the vote from less populous states, the electors...from various districts within a state...prevent populous areas within a state from overwhelming the vote from less populous areas.

The Founders got it right when they created the electoral system.
Click to expand...

There's no reason to have electors in this case, you don't need to appoint an elector if the State decides fully on how it's EC votes are spent. The People of the State vote and the State states how those EC votes are distributed, the end. There's absolutely no need for an actual elector in this case. The very fact that we had actual representation of Electors as individuals and that the Founders wrote about the necessity and importance of the Faithless Elector demonstrates that the Faithless Elector was intended and designed for this system as well.
 
Helix said:
Now the EC has no purpose other than to let real estate potentially elect the loser. Time for it to go.
Click to expand...

Unless Trump wins the popular vote and loses the electoral college. Then the electoral college will be the neatest thing since sliced bread.
 
Athanasius68 said:
I don't see how the decision:
1. Weaponizes the EC
2. Strengthens the NPV argument
3. Destroys the NPV argument
4. Destroys the rationale for the EC

It simply said a state can penalize electors who do not vote for the candidate for which he or she was pledged.
Click to expand...
It also says that an elector who does not vote for the candidate to which they are pledged may be removed and replaced with one who will.
 
HumblePi said:
There has always been the argument that we must support the Electoral College because it gives more influence to smaller states than they would have otherwise. But this isn't true at all. The electoral college 'winner-take-all' system doesn't favor small states as it does large toss-up states like Florida, Ohio and Michigan. These three states get a lot of attention from any presidential candidate. The rest of the states in this country don't have nearly as much focus placed on them.
Click to expand...

That's because the population in those states are largely evenly divided.
Trump doesn't go to California; Biden doesn't go to Alabama.

Also, the place where the interests of small states is extremely well represented is the US Senate. If anything, small states -- with their equal representation in the Senate -- already have far too much power. A big state like Wyoming, with much less than 1 million people, get just as many US Senators as California, even though it has 50 times as many people. No single state should have 53 times more representation than another.
Click to expand...

However, folks from small states have an interest in who is elected presdient.

The main purpose of the Electoral College, was to balance the power between the Southern slave-owning States and the North. The rural South didn't want to be governed by the more populous North. The South's main income was cotton and they needed slaves to work the fields, they didn't want the slaves to be freed. To achieve this purpose, the Southern cotton states were allowed to have slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person. So, even if you were a slave, with no rights at all, you didn't count as a whole person. This gave the Southern states more representation in Congress and more votes in the Electoral College.
Click to expand...

The purpose of the electoral college was to support the federal nature of the Constitution-- people vote for the House; states vote for the Senate; people and states vote for the president.
Click to expand...
 
Glitch said:
I agree with the court's decision. If you are swearing an oath to vote for the candidate the popular vote of the State has determined, then not doing so amounts to perjury at least and possibly fraud. Which means faithless electors should at least be fined, possibly even imprisoned (perjury comes with a maximum prison sentence of 10 years), and most certainly barred from ever being an Elector in the future.
Click to expand...

What you just said removes an individual US citizen's right to freedom of choice. Isn't that in the US Constitution also?
 
Taylor said:
It also says that an elector who does not vote for the candidate to which they are pledged may be removed and replaced with one who will.
Click to expand...

I would wonder about that provision. But then again, states control their own electors.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
This has nothing to do with the constitution. The constitution doesn't specify anything as regards to this. That's why it went to the supreme court...
Click to expand...

Of course it pertains to the US Constitution, or it wouldn't be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Colorado Department of State v. Michael Baca, No. 19–518, pertains to both Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 and the Twelfth Amendment of the US Constitution, and basically asks whether or not a State is prohibited from forcing its Electors to conform to the State's popular vote when casting their EC ballots. The Supreme Court said today that the States are not prohibited from punishing faithless Electors.
 
HumblePi said:
What you just said removes an individual US citizen's right to freedom of choice. Isn't that in the US Constitution also?
Click to expand...

Individual US citizens never had the right to vote for President, and yes, that is in the US Constitution. You might try actually reading it some day.
 
Ikari said:
Faithless electors: Supreme Court says states can punish Electoral College voters - CNNPolitics



I will say that this is absolute bull****. There's no need for electors anymore because of this. The Faithless Elector was a fundamental, designed, and necessary dynamic of the Electoral College. Getting rid of them defeats part of the reason the EC is used. We've had faithless electors in the past, and it's always been part of the system, and it should have remained part of the system. I suppose we don't have to go through the hoopla of actually having electors anymore, since each State's votes will go as the State dictates they go as.
Click to expand...

I agree. If the electoral vote is a foregone conclusion, based strictly on the popular vote, there is no need for the EC.

The function of the EC actually went away when states started electing their senators by popular vote. It used to be that state legislators would hand pick the U.S. senators, the idea being so they would not be unduly influenced by 'mob rule' as can happen with populist votes in the House. The Founders built this as a safety valve against the unsophisticated rubes electing a con man or flimflam artist. As it is today, senators are virtually no different than any representative. They must cater to the majority, even if the majority is dead wrong. The same with Electors. They were included in the Constitution to be a buffer against the dangers of strict majority rule. Now that they no longer serve that function, they have no purpose. The last election demonstrated that.
 
Athanasius68 said:
I would wonder about that provision. But then again, states control their own electors.
Click to expand...

Electors are swearing an oath. No different from someone taking the stand in a court of law and swearing an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. When they are busted violating their oath we punish them. Hell, we even impeached a President because of perjury. So of course faithless Electors should be fined, at the very least. It was entirely up to them to violate their oath, an oath they did not have to make in the first place. They could have refused to pledge their vote and suffer no legal penalties. They would naturally be removed as Electors, but unless they perjured themselves they haven't violated any law.
 
The popular vote has only been overridden 4 times by the electoral college. The founders thought that the use of electors would give our country a representative president, while avoiding a corruptible national election.
 
Taylor said:
Should we do away with the Senate, too? Maybe do away with states entirely?
Click to expand...

Yes. We should do away with everything, including existence. We should force the universe into an infinitely dense particle and then fart on it.

Or, we could get rid of the electoral college. I pick that option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom