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
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.