LINK Supreme Court to decide whether Electoral College voters have a right to differ from state popular vote
This could make the outcome of the popular election in November meaningless, and leave everyone guessing the outcome of the presidential election until the EC meets in December. Squirmishes between candidates, regardless of the primary process, could well determine/ undermine the outcome of the election, with diverse multi candidate slates, like the current dems, destroying the parties ability to run a single viable candidate. Voters who were on the fence about even voting at all, but if they did, would just vote for whoever their vague party allegiences dictate (key for the divided trump fearing gop, and for the lackluster dems) will stay home in greater numbers.
A disaster for the current political process, but is there really any reason the scotus should accept state level attemps to control the EC? It is a federal institution, and its pretty clear the constution intended to give it primacy over the popular vote.
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
3 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
Rogue ''electors'' are essentially STEALING American votes and SCOTUS should stop it!
LucyLoohoo
Level 9
Jan 17, 2020
1
The electoral college is a disaster no matter how it's implemented. Flawed concepts will always create a much more flawed system than normal that can be exploited.
The electoral college was designed to keep the actual voting for the president out of the hands of the people and in the house of representatives (senators were originally selected by the states legislators till the early 1900s, also).
According to the framers some federal positions were to importaint for the plebs to have a say in.
1of5
Level 8
Jan 17, 2020
1
But at the same time they did specifically mandate the general election, so whats the point? The old rational that counting the ballots would be laborious and then electors would travel to represent each state? The framers made a few other massive oversights like assuming people would understand the 2nd amendment as they intended, or that congress would act in the interests of the people not corporations.
1of5:
@MarkiusMahamius basically to form coalitions, a half parliamentary effort. A system with 3 or more parties was envisioned and if a candidate crossed the threshold on the popular vote (s)he'd be the people's choice, if no popular winner the parties in the house would need to wheel and deal amongst themselves to consensus.
They saw it as a win either way, unless there's a 2 party system. Oops.
@1of5 makes sense
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.