A court ruling just changed how we pick our president

[wvit1001]

A federal appeals court ruled late Tuesday that presidential electors who cast the actual ballots for president and vice president are free to vote as they wish and cannot be required to follow the results of the popular vote in their states.

The decision could give a single elector the power to decide the outcome of a presidential election — if the popular vote results in an apparent Electoral College tie.

"This issue could be a ticking time bomb in our divided politics. It's not hard to imagine how a single faithless elector, voting differently than his or her state did, could swing a close presidential election," said Mark Murray, NBC News senior political editor.

It hasn't been much of an issue in American political history because when an elector refuses to follow the results of a state's popular vote, the state simply throws the ballot away. But Tuesday's ruling says states cannot do that.

The decision, from a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, is a victory for Micheal Baca, a Colorado Democratic elector in 2016. Under state law, he was required to cast his ballot for Hillary Clinton, who won the state's popular vote. Instead, he crossed out her name and wrote in John Kasich, a Republican and then the governor of Ohio.

The secretary of state removed Baca as an elector, discarded his vote and brought in another elector who voted for Clinton. In a 2-1 decision, the appeals court said the nullification of Baca's vote was unconstitutional.

When voters go to the polls in presidential races, they actually cast their votes for a slate of electors chosen by the political parties of the nominees. States are free to choose their electors however they want, Tuesday's ruling said, and can even require electors to pledge their loyalty to their political parties.

But once the electors are chosen and report in December to cast their votes as members of the Electoral College, they are fulfilling a federal function, and a state's authority has ended. "The states' power to appoint electors does not include the power to remove them or nullify their votes," the court said.

Because the Constitution contains no requirement for electors to follow the wishes of a political party, "the electors, once appointed, are free to vote as they choose," assuming that they cast their vote for a legally qualified candidate.

A total of 30 states have laws that bind electors, requiring them to cast their votes for whichever candidate won that state's popular vote. But the laws are weak, providing only nominal penalties for what are known as "faithless electors" who fail to conform to the popular vote.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1952 that states do not violate the Constitution when they require electors to pledge that they will abide by the popular vote. But the justices have never said whether it is constitutional to enforce those pledges.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/faithless-elector-a-court-ruling-just-changed-how-we-pick-our-president/ar-AAG8tdZ?li=BBnb7Kz

[Dan]

A federal appeals court ruled late Tuesday that presidential electors who cast the actual ballots for president and vice president are free to vote as they wish

So … pretty much just as they've done for 240 years.  Why did you think this was a change?

[wvit1001]

Instead of jumping straight to the troll'n dan why don't you take a minute to read the article before making your troll'n comments -





It hasn't been much of an issue in American political history because when an elector refuses to follow the results of a state's popular vote, the state simply throws the ballot away. But Tuesday's ruling says states cannot do that.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/faithless-elector-a-court-ruling-just-changed-how-we-pick-our-president/ar-AAG8tdZ?li=BBnb7Kz

[Dan]

Instead of jumping straight to responding, why don't you take a minute to read the article before making your comments -

I did, racist troll.  I freaking quoted it!!!  Give me some credit for knowing what the hell I'm talking about.  The question is, why didn't you know this about the electoral college before?

[wvit1001]

no you didn't troll'n dan.   you were just troll'n per your usual.

[Truman62]

Having to count every vote IS a big change, Dan.

Dan isn't seeing things clearly anymore...  been that way for a while now

[Dan]

Right, racist troll.  I quoted it without looking at it. 

[Dan]

Having to count every vote IS a big change, Dan.

There is no change, davik.  And counting every vote is not what the ruling was about.

Dan isn't seeing things clearly

Of the three of us, I am the only one here who does.  They taught this stuff in high school.  Why am I the only one here who knew electors could vote however they wanted?

[wvit1001]

troll'n dan is a troll'n

[Dan]

Vit is a racist troll.

[wvit1001]

says troll'n dan.   

[Dan]

Everyone says that, racist troll.