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.
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.