Because the dems want a situation where electors can refuse to follow the results of the state's popular vote. All states purport to bind their electors, and some even call for modest fines for "faithless electors." There are lawsuits all over the place filed by the left, challenging those laws, and a split of authority in the federal courts, I believe, so the Supreme Court has decided to take two of the cases up and settle the issue.
It's important, if you live in a red state and want your vote to count and not be overturned by some yahoo elector mole. Even a handful of filched electoral votes can swing a presidential election. And your article is behind a paywall.
Lol, this was their plan to destroy the electoral votes, don't understand how this wouldn't be un-constitutonal, to vote for popular vote candidate in usa. And what a bullshit explanation in the article that would be important when victory margin .... no. To start off California should have 50% of their electors removed until they close their borders and allow voter id otherwise it's just a joke not elections. A fucking joke. If not illegals trump crushed that hag. In popular vote. Constitution is pretty clear union must be protected from crazy yuge states like commiefornia cheaters
Here's where we see the SC jumping the shark in broad daylight. IT'S IN THE FRIGGIN' CONSTITUTION FOR A REASON! Founders never wanted democracy, best summarized as two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner by vote.
You are 180 degrees off what this is about. It's not about abolishing the electoral college (which the Supreme Court couldn't do anyway). it is about the validity of state laws preventing a state's electors from voting contrary to their state's popular vote, laws the dems want to void. "Faithless electors". Just like in 2016, remember that drama at the end? It is good that they are taking the case now, before the election, because if Trump wins, the dems WILL try to turn electors.
Gee, judging from the number of cases that have gone the right way?
Like do you people only ever pay attention to the SCOTUS decisions that didn't? Amazing how people going on about whom the fuck to "trust", cannot even be trusted to examine the whole of SCOTUS's decisions.
Would you rather, like me, have it done by June, or wait until bunch of electors defect after the Nov. election and have to have the issue start out and work its way up then, keeping the election results in limbo for months, like in Bush v. Gore?
If they decide that you cannot vote for a candidate who didn't win the popular vote in your state, wouldn't it kill the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?
Totally different issue, and the court is not being asked to rule whether electors are bound. The case the court took up will ONLY answers the question:
"Are STATE laws (now in effect in all 50 states) which bind electors to vote for the presidential candidate who received the most popular vote in that state constitutional."
That's all.
The Compact question is different, even though it also deals with electors, and if enacted would undoubtedly result in multiple states challenging it on a myriad of grounds, but the case under review now would not answer those questions. Not there yet and won't need to worry about the compact this time around.
As stated in subtitle: "High court to consider whether presidential electors can vote for candidate not chosen in state popular vote". That would be the same as national compact. If they say electors can't vote other than for states winner then national compact of retards is fucked.
FuckSpez:
Seems to me the title is misleading after reading moar fake news elsewhere. So here answer that states can't bind electors would mean the elections would not be needed, lol, just ask electors and keep pics of them fucking kids nearby. If states can't fine them then regard3of how much illegals there is cheating and even if california has 1mil electoral votes Trump can win. If states can bind then they can bind to us level popular vote and enough illegals will do the trick, simple as that
Because the dems want a situation where electors can refuse to follow the results of the state's popular vote. All states purport to bind their electors, and some even call for modest fines for "faithless electors." There are lawsuits all over the place filed by the left, challenging those laws, and a split of authority in the federal courts, I believe, so the Supreme Court has decided to take two of the cases up and settle the issue.
It's important, if you live in a red state and want your vote to count and not be overturned by some yahoo elector mole. Even a handful of filched electoral votes can swing a presidential election. And your article is behind a paywall.
Dang. Sorry.
Doesn't matter, they're really gonna hate every ballot after 2025 because I'm writing in Trump on all of them and voting for him lol
Lol, this was their plan to destroy the electoral votes, don't understand how this wouldn't be un-constitutonal, to vote for popular vote candidate in usa. And what a bullshit explanation in the article that would be important when victory margin .... no. To start off California should have 50% of their electors removed until they close their borders and allow voter id otherwise it's just a joke not elections. A fucking joke. If not illegals trump crushed that hag. In popular vote. Constitution is pretty clear union must be protected from crazy yuge states like commiefornia cheaters
Legally they can vote for whomever they wish.
That is why the parties are supposed to choose party faithful and not randos as electors.
Here's where we see the SC jumping the shark in broad daylight. IT'S IN THE FRIGGIN' CONSTITUTION FOR A REASON! Founders never wanted democracy, best summarized as two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner by vote.
You are 180 degrees off what this is about. It's not about abolishing the electoral college (which the Supreme Court couldn't do anyway). it is about the validity of state laws preventing a state's electors from voting contrary to their state's popular vote, laws the dems want to void. "Faithless electors". Just like in 2016, remember that drama at the end? It is good that they are taking the case now, before the election, because if Trump wins, the dems WILL try to turn electors.
Here's a very short article from FOX explaining the case, roughly. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-hear-faithless-elector-case-ahead-2020-presidential-election
You trust Roberts and the lefties to go strictly by the Constitution? How has that been working out in the Roberts court?
Gee, judging from the number of cases that have gone the right way?
Like do you people only ever pay attention to the SCOTUS decisions that didn't? Amazing how people going on about whom the fuck to "trust", cannot even be trusted to examine the whole of SCOTUS's decisions.
Hey, I just live by GWB's axiom: Fool me once, shame on....me. or something like that. Thanks for the downvote, though!
Would you rather, like me, have it done by June, or wait until bunch of electors defect after the Nov. election and have to have the issue start out and work its way up then, keeping the election results in limbo for months, like in Bush v. Gore?
If they decide that you cannot vote for a candidate who didn't win the popular vote in your state, wouldn't it kill the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?
Totally different issue, and the court is not being asked to rule whether electors are bound. The case the court took up will ONLY answers the question:
"Are STATE laws (now in effect in all 50 states) which bind electors to vote for the presidential candidate who received the most popular vote in that state constitutional." That's all.
The Compact question is different, even though it also deals with electors, and if enacted would undoubtedly result in multiple states challenging it on a myriad of grounds, but the case under review now would not answer those questions. Not there yet and won't need to worry about the compact this time around.
As stated in subtitle: "High court to consider whether presidential electors can vote for candidate not chosen in state popular vote". That would be the same as national compact. If they say electors can't vote other than for states winner then national compact of retards is fucked.
FuckSpez: Seems to me the title is misleading after reading moar fake news elsewhere. So here answer that states can't bind electors would mean the elections would not be needed, lol, just ask electors and keep pics of them fucking kids nearby. If states can't fine them then regard3of how much illegals there is cheating and even if california has 1mil electoral votes Trump can win. If states can bind then they can bind to us level popular vote and enough illegals will do the trick, simple as that
1844 was the first election where all electors were chosen by popular vote.