The state's popular vote compact is dead

[Wyatt earp]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

Expect another court to immediately rule the exact opposite. It will be a matter of days, not weeks.

.

We can only hope so

Electors should represent the will of the people

Oh so is that why gay marriage is Illegal in California?

After all the will of the people said NO to gay marriage

.

 

[gallantwarrior]

This could go either way. If I remember correctly, it was the Democrats who wanted to abolish the electoral college after the 2016 election.

So what would happen in states like California and New York if the electors didn't have to go along with the liberal popular vote?

It would be more legitimate if each elector cast their vote representing the will of electorate in their district instead of casting all electoral votes for the majority candidate. I believe one state does allow a split electoral vote.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This is a bad ruling and I hope it gets overturned.

When the people of a state cast their ballots for president they should with the knowledge that the electors for their state will abide by the election results.

Faithless elector: A court ruling just changed how we pick our president

The electoral college should as it normally has done vote the state popular vote.

But the court just ruled they do not have to.

Why have elections?

That does seem to be the question at hand. According to this court our presidential election is meaningless and seems to just be a ruse to placate the people.

?

The court is going by the Constitution, the popular vote is meaningless.

Actually it depends on state by state laws

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

The "compact" never affected a "faithless elector." Each subscribing state will still select electors who "pledge" to vote for the popular winner, and if some elector "lies" and votes another way, there's no recourse for the state other than to personally ostracize that faithless elector in future political situations, and of course he'll never find a dinner companion or threesome for golf who'll make him the fourth. Same as it ever was.

It was my understanding that making the elector "pledge" to vote a particular way was the problem.

From the OP article:

"The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the Colorado secretary of state violated the Constitution in 2016 when he removed an elector and nullified his vote when the elector refused to cast his ballot for Democrat Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote."
.

 

[bendog]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

The "compact" never affected a "faithless elector." Each subscribing state will still select electors who "pledge" to vote for the popular winner, and if some elector "lies" and votes another way, there's no recourse for the state other than to personally ostracize that faithless elector in future political situations, and of course he'll never find a dinner companion or threesome for golf who'll make him the fourth. Same as it ever was.

It was my understanding that making the elector "pledge" to vote a particular way was the problem.

.

Appeals court rules Electoral College members not bound by popular vote

 

[The Original Tree]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

Expect another court to immediately rule the exact opposite. It will be a matter of days, not weeks.

.

We can only hope so

Electors should represent the will of the people

Oh so is that why gay marriage is Illegal in California?

After all the will of the people said NO to gay marriage

.

They also legalized Prostitution for Girls and Boys as young as 13 years old. California is a Morally, Ethically and Spiritually Ill State.

 

[bendog]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

The "compact" never affected a "faithless elector." Each subscribing state will still select electors who "pledge" to vote for the popular winner, and if some elector "lies" and votes another way, there's no recourse for the state other than to personally ostracize that faithless elector in future political situations, and of course he'll never find a dinner companion or threesome for golf who'll make him the fourth. Same as it ever was.

It was my understanding that making the elector "pledge" to vote a particular way was the problem.

.

Appeals court rules Electoral College members not bound by popular vote

Under either the previous scheme or a scheme pledging all electors to the national popular vote, any individual elector may choose to be "faitheless" and vote as they individually choose. The Court decision doesn't have anything to do with how a state chooses to allocate the electors who pledge to vote for some candidate. The elector who lies and votes otherwise faces only social stigma.

 

[TRFjr]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

its always been that way
it's one of the reasons why the founding fathers chose the implementation of the electoral college type system it was a safeguard

 

[task0778]

FYI, to clarify:

" Each political party with a candidate on the ballot designates their own set of Electors for each state, matching the number of Electors they appoint with the number of Electoral votes allotted to the state. This usually occurs at the State party Conventions. Electors are typically strong and loyal supporters of their political party, but can never be a U.S. Senator or Representative. Electors are also generally free agents, as only 29 states require electors to vote as they have pledged, and many Constitutional scholars believe those requirements would not stand in a court challenge.

After the election, the party that wins the most votes in each state appoints all of the Electors for that state. This is known as a winner-take-all or unit rule allocation of electors. Currently, the only exceptions to this are in Maine and Nebraska. "

If I understand the popular vote pact correctly, in those states that signed up, the party of the national popular vote winner would appoint the electors for that state, even if the popular vote in that state went for another candidate. But according to this latest ruling, each elector cannot be required to follow the dictates of the party that appointed him/her, and I suspect the SCOTUS will decide in favor of that ruling.

The larger question to me is, if a candidate wins the popular vote in a state, can the losing candidate's party still appoint the electors for that state if he/she managed to win the overall national popular vote? Dunno how that is going to go, but I hope we don't wait until the presidential election is in the balance and it's up to the SCOTUS to decide who won.

 

[Coyote]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

Maybe it is time to get rid of it.

 

[Papageorgio]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

Maybe it is time to get rid of it.

Why?

 

[HappyJoy]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

The states popular vote. This doesn't specifically have anything to do with the national vote compact.

To me this ruling just shows how antiquated the EC system is if they can just vote for whoever they want.

 

[HappyJoy]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

Maybe it is time to get rid of it.

Completely agree, if electors are not bound to something remotely resembling the will of the people then why have it at all?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

The "compact" never affected a "faithless elector." Each subscribing state will still select electors who "pledge" to vote for the popular winner, and if some elector "lies" and votes another way, there's no recourse for the state other than to personally ostracize that faithless elector in future political situations, and of course he'll never find a dinner companion or threesome for golf who'll make him the fourth. Same as it ever was.

It was my understanding that making the elector "pledge" to vote a particular way was the problem.

.

Appeals court rules Electoral College members not bound by popular vote

Yes. That is exactly where I got this quote.

"The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the Colorado secretary of state violated the Constitution in 2016 when he removed an elector and nullified his vote because the elector refused to cast his ballot for Democrat Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote."

But, I just notice that you replied faster than I could edit and include the above quote.

So, it was nothing more than restating the status quo, that a state cannot force an elector to vote a particular way.

.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

Maybe it is time to get rid of it.

Why?

For the millionth time people are not the same in Buffalo Wyoming as in San Francisco

 

[bendog]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

The "compact" never affected a "faithless elector." Each subscribing state will still select electors who "pledge" to vote for the popular winner, and if some elector "lies" and votes another way, there's no recourse for the state other than to personally ostracize that faithless elector in future political situations, and of course he'll never find a dinner companion or threesome for golf who'll make him the fourth. Same as it ever was.

It was my understanding that making the elector "pledge" to vote a particular way was the problem.

.

Appeals court rules Electoral College members not bound by popular vote

Yes. That is exactly where I got this quote.

"The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the Colorado secretary of state violated the Constitution in 2016 when he removed an elector and nullified his vote because the elector refused to cast his ballot for Democrat Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote."

But, I just notice that you replied faster than I could edit and include the above quote.

So, it was nothing more than restating the status quo, that a state cannot force an elector to vote a particular way.

.

That's the way I read it.

 

[HappyJoy]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

Maybe it is time to get rid of it.

Why?

For the millionth time people are not the same in Buffalo Wyoming as in San Francisco

Apparently you didn't read the OP.

 

[BlindBoo]

Electors will still be chosen by the victorious Party not the State.

Bad faith electors have always been a thing. Though some states do have laws against them. Not all.

How does the ruling effect the Compact again?

 

[BlindBoo]

But the court just ruled they do not have to.

Why have elections?

That does seem to be the question at hand. According to this court our presidential election is meaningless and seems to just be a ruse to placate the people.

Wait. How so? All this court said was that electors must be selected by the state and that a state's laws cannot dictate to individual electors the candidate for whom they will vote. It has always been that way since the last time the constitution was amended on the issue.

.

So, there is nothing to stop electors from ignoring the popular vote of the state.

Right. The compact was FORCING them to vote a specific way. This court simply shot that down and maintained the status quo.

.

Each party submits a list of electors. I think the compact states will award the right to choose the states electors to the party based on the national vote rather than the states vote.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

Expect another court to immediately rule the exact opposite. It will be a matter of days, not weeks.

.

We can only hope so

Electors should represent the will of the people

Oh so is that why gay marriage is Illegal in California?

After all the will of the people said NO to gay marriage

.

They also legalized Prostitution for Girls and Boys as young as 13 years old. California is a Morally, Ethically and Spiritually Ill State.

how many times are you going to repeat this lie?

you know, no matter how often you repeat it, it will never magically become the truth.