Supreme Court to decide whether EC voters have a right to differ from state popular vote

Okay, and you see what happened. Electors did not agree with your opinion and most voted according to the popular vote in their states.

Despite all the advertising, propaganda and emails/letters received by the 2016 Republican electors, almost none changed their votes to become faithless electors. Obviously, if 37 of them had agreed that Trump was an unelectable tyrant, they could have voted differently....which is why I said that I doubt giving electors the right to "vote their conscience" will ever sway election results, unless the candidate is truly egregious.

The system works fine.

In the other Supreme Court case....states can't be allowed to make an "interstate" pact to vote with the national popular vote.

 

We had no immigration policy when the founders formed this country. Nowhere in the constitution can you cite where the border is to be sealed, as you claimed. That is an objective fact of reality. Sorry.

 

This isn't a left v right issue. It is about ensuring that the the people's will is respected.

 

I agree. Article 4, Section 4 states that the government shall protect the states from invasion (and from domestic violence). If we tell migrants to come through our legal ports of entry, but they insist on pouring across the border at illegal points, that is an invasion. Those illegal gangsters and human traffickers are definitely committing acts of domestic violence against American citizens as well.

 

I don't think there can be a fully tyrannical state as long as Americans are armed.

But as soon as we are disarmed anything can happen. By armed i mean enough individuals with enough and capable arms to hold the few government loyalist troops at bay.

 

There it is-that lefty fury and inability to accept the outcome of the election.

 

Listen and listen GOOD.

This bullshit about 'no immigration policy' is just that, bullshit. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 covers immigration.

What the **** are you thinking?

The very foundation of ANY sovereign country depends of the concept of being able to define the sovereign distinctly, with a border that defines the boundary of the sovereign territory and thus the laws that apply within it.

This open border bullshit is just that, bullshit. There can be NO NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY with open borders. In other words, a country doesn't exist with open borders.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Does it say, we the people and illegal aliens? Uh, no.

If you can't understand what the concept of perfect Union is, then there is no help for you.

And ****ing furthermore, because this illegal alien **** really pisses me off, if you are in the camp that illegals shouldn't have a right to vote...then you should understand that illegals being counted in the census which determines the amount of Electors for each state IS THE SAME THING AS ALLOWING ILLEGALS TO VOTE.

Illegal aliens have done more damage to our elections than ANY foreign country could ever dream of, Russia Russia Russia hoax included.

Illegals are a CANCER on national sovereignty. They will be the catalyst that turns this country into a shithole. Parts of it already are.

 

So why is it the left whos intent on this?

Answer-because they don't like certain outcomes.

 

that's exactly how it's been, all along... each state gets it's say, it's not supposed to be about the overall popular vote, it's all about the popular vote of each individual precinct, which allows the majority to live the way they wish...

btw, in '16, 7 million more voters voted against hillary than voted for her

 

This case would effect all states so how far doesn the "how" extend to all states.

 

I'm no lefty and if you bothered to understand my posts you would realize that I am saying that it was correct for the electors to respect the will of the people.

However, if this case had been heard - and decided the way you want it to be decided - before 2016, there is a real chance that enough electors would have voted against Trump to hand Clinton the presidency.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

And they made the right decision in Thomas Jefferson, one of our founders and a great legal mind. I do think that having the electors have more say is a good thing. For those who fear the 'damage' of a Trump, a qualified vote would be a good way to balance out the passion of the masses.

 

So the Colorado and Washington electors did not want to vote for Hillary as the citizens voted to protect the country.

 

It is the states that are concerned that electors will not respect the will of the people.

 

They already don’t campaign in half the states. If California and New York apportioned they night get visita from the republican. If the south did they might get visits from the dems. As it is now they only go to a handful of states.

 

There is nothing in the constitution that says each the popular vote from a state will result in all that state's electors voting for one person. There are countless ways that the states could decide to allocate their EC votes. What happens now is just one of them.

 

We are talking about 2 separate Electoral College cases which the SC will be hearing.

I think the one which you are asking about is the Colorado case of Michael Baca, who voted for John Kasich instead of his commitment to vote for Hillary Clinton.

The Supreme Court can essentially determine whether electors can or can't "vote their conscience"...or I suppose that could simply decide that the Constitution left the "rules" completely up to each state to decide for themselves....and make no changes.

One of the two faithless electors in Texas in 2016, said that his oath to the Texas Constitution and to the U.S. Constitution superseded his oath to the Republican Party. He voted for Ron Paul. (Texas does not have any rule/penalty against faithless electors.)

 

So it seems. Unfortunately for the country, there were no electors from states that Trump won who had the same courage.

 

Again, we had no immigration policy when the country was founded. The constitution simply confers the power to regulate immigration with congress.

Open borders is your strawman. I made no such statement.

And as I pointed out, you can cite no language anywhere in the constitution to support your claim of “sealed borders”. This is reality. Sorry.

 

Yeah, interesting history. There were 7 faithless electors in 2016. Even though all the public pressure was to turn electors against Trump, 5 of the faithless turned against Hillary and only 2 turned against Trump.

 

No, that would give the smaller states an enormous advantage. Just leave as it is.

 

How? If the points are equal, it doesn't matter who's small or big, who has the most or least population. Right or left or purple. All votes counted the same.

 

Useless trivia: Bill Clinton was a New York elector in 2016, so he got to vote for his wife. Would have been ironic if old Bill had been faithless to Hillary. Again.

 

Our "Representative Republic" requires that each person's vote is essentially equal. They need to keep the electors apportioned to where the population resides. The deck gets "reshuffled" every decade with the Census count. We'll see California and New York get fewer electors because their populations are exiting their states, and Texas, Colorado and Nevada gain electors because people are moving to those states.

If there were ever an electoral college tie, then the election gets decided in the House with each state getting 1 vote...but you know the Representatives would have a debate and vote to make the final decision for the state.

 

If I read your post correctly, you think 1 point/vote for each state, and then with the 50 states and DC we have 51 total votes/points.

Going by that, the states with a small population, now has a greater weight to the election, that is not what the EC was for. The total population must have some say.