'Faithless elector': Supreme Court hears cases that could change presidential contests

[soulcougher73]

Why can't we just have a state-by-state proportional EC vote split? You have 20 EC votes, person X wins 55% of the vote, they get 11 votes, person Y gets 9. Makes California GOP votes, and Texas Dem votes, and NY GOP votes much much more important.

Its nice and i would certainly take it, but at that point why not just have popular vote? The results would be the same.

 

[Sunburn74]

Honestly I think the conservatives on the court will betray their policy of reading the constitution on its face.

If you were to take the constitution literally and take the historical meaning of the electoral college, clearly electors should be able to do what they want. However I think almost assurdedly the right wingers will say "well this time, we won't read the constitution literally like we always do with our asinine decisions and instead will apply our logic to it because it preserves a power system that favors people like us"

 

[Greenman]

Honestly I think the conservatives on the court will betray their policy of reading the constitution on its face.

If you were to take the constitution literally and take the historical meaning of the electoral college, clearly electors should be able to do what they want. However I think almost assurdedly the right wingers will say "well this time, we won't read the constitution literally like we always do with our asinine decisions and instead will apply our logic to it because it preserves a power system that favors people like us"

If the electors can do whatever they want, doesn't negate the reason to have an election?

 

[fskimospy]

If the electors can do whatever they want, doesn't negate the reason to have an election?

If we take the text of the constitution literally a presidential election is optional anyway. The states could just do away with it entirely if they wanted.

 

[Brainonska511]

If we take the text of the constitution literally a presidential election is optional anyway. The states could just do away with it entirely if they wanted.

That's how it was originally. Electors were often appointed by state legislatures for the first 30-40 years of the republic.

 

[Sunburn74]

If the electors can do whatever they want, doesn't negate the reason to have an election?

Yes. That's how the founders wanted it if you follow history. They didn't trust the general public (the ln actually just white landowners) to actually do a good job with voting.

If you are a constitutional literalist like all the conservatives on the court claim to be, it should be pretty clear electors should be able to do whatever they want. Technically speaking if we want electors to follow the popular vote, there should be a constitutional amendment on the issue that should be passed. However I'm sure they'll come up with something and legislate from the bench.

 

[Greenman]

Yes. That's how the founders wanted it if you follow history. They didn't trust the general public (the ln actually just white landowners) to actually do a good job with voting.

If you are a constitutional literalist like all the conservatives on the court claim to be, it should be pretty clear electors should be able to do whatever they want. Technically speaking if we want electors to follow the popular vote, there should be a constitutional amendment on the issue that should be passed. However I'm sure they'll come up with something and legislate from the bench.

Or just throw it back to the states. The states elect the president, so if the states decide the legislature should get to choose the president I have no issue with that. The people can replace any representatives they don't like.

 

[fskimospy]

Or just throw it back to the states. The states elect the president, so if the states decide the legislature should get to choose the president I have no issue with that. The people can replace any representatives they don't like.

Except of course with gerrymandering they can’t replace representatives in many states as we saw in Wisconsin. It is for all intents and purposes impossible for Democrats to get a majority in the legislature.

Like, impossible.

 

[soundforbjt]

Except of course with gerrymandering they can’t replace representatives in many states as we saw in Wisconsin. It is for all intents and purposes impossible for Democrats to get a majority in the legislature.

Like, impossible.

For him that's a feature, not a bug.

 

[fskimospy]

For him that's a feature, not a bug.

Possibly, but regardless until all gerrymandering is abolished you can’t get rid of the presidential election from a governance standpoint. Republicans in Wisconsin have basically abolished democracy in their state as far as the legislature goes so basically it would just be transferring the results of that cheating over to cheating in the presidential election.