LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

SCOTUS: States can punish Electoral College members who change their votes

SugarDaddy1

SugarDaddy1

Literotica Guru
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Posts
1,904
Electoral College members hoping to disrupt the system to influence the election results took a loss Monday, as the Supreme Court ruled that states can punish "faithless electors" who vote differently from how they are pledged to vote based on the general election results.
Click to expand...
Source
 
The source given misrepresents the effect of the Supreme Court ruling. The issue of significance is that the SC ruled that electors can be held bound to their pledge to vote for who they were pledged to vote for, not that they can punished for voting for someone else. I don't know what bias or lack of knowledge led the Blaze to miss what was important in the ruling. What's important is who gets the elector's vote, not what happens to the elector if he/she doesn't vote as pledged

https://www.bing.com/search?q=supre...feffc4b84a57785a3e81c96aa&cc=US&setlang=en-US
 
KeithD said:
The source given misrepresents the effect of the Supreme Court ruling. The issue of significance is that the SC ruled that electors can be held bound to their pledge to vote for who they were pledged to vote for, not that they can punished for voting for someone else. I don't know what bias or lack of knowledge led the Blaze to miss what was important in the ruling. What's important is who gets the elector's vote, not what happens to the elector if he/she doesn't vote as pledged

https://www.bing.com/search?q=supre...feffc4b84a57785a3e81c96aa&cc=US&setlang=en-US
Click to expand...



The ruling merely says that the State can punish the faithless elector. It DOESN'T SAY that the vote is changed. Thus, if an elector is willing to face the penalty of faithlessly voting, the VOTE remains as cast.
 
 
Last edited:
 
HisArpy said:
NOT A SINGLE ONE of your sources says that the State can CHANGE THE VOTE after it is cast.

Nor does the opinion.
Click to expand...

Each of them says the vote can be forced as pledged. Guess we'll just have to see what it actually means, but every news source I cited makes the point that the vote can be forced as pledged.

You haven't cited anything. I challenged you to.

If you have access to the actual opinion, cite it. You aren't believable as a law interpreter. You've made that very clear in your history of posting.
 
KeithD said:
Each of them says the vote can be forced as pledged. Guess we'll just have to see what it actually means, but every news source I cited makes the point that the vote can be forced as pledged.

You haven't cited anything. I challenged you to.

If you have access to the actual opinion, cite it. You aren't believable as a law interpreter. You've made that very clear in your history of posting.
Click to expand...


Your "interpretation" sucks because you lack the mental comprehension to understand what the fuck you're talking about.


The State can mandate, under penalty or punishment, that the elector MUST vote as required. That is what the opinion says.

WHAT IT DOESN'T SAY is that electors who go rogue can have their votes cancelled or changed.

What happens if an elector decides to vote for Trump in a Biden State? He pays the fine but the vote still stands as cast.
 
It's the intepretation of every mainstream press item I've found--not MY interpretation--and I've cited them. And as You won't cite anything saying the vote can't be forced to be registered as pledged, which is the important issue, you're just full of gas, as usual. Cite something authoritative. I don't give a shit what you think. You've been constantly screwed up in your personal opinions.
 
HisArpy said:
What happens if an elector decides to vote for Trump in a Biden State? He pays the fine but the vote still stands as cast.
Click to expand...


Note that the case didn't revolve around that situation. The votes in question were cast for insignificant players. Almost like the votes were intentionally discarded by the Electors.

"Because of so-called faithless electors, there were three votes cast for Colin Powell. Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul, John Kasich and Faith Spotted Eagle split the remaining four votes."
 
jaF0 said:
Note that the case didn't revolve around that situation. The votes in question were cast for insignificant players. Almost like the votes were intentionally discarded by the Electors.

"Because of so-called faithless electors, there were three votes cast for Colin Powell. Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul, John Kasich and Faith Spotted Eagle split the remaining four votes."
Click to expand...

In general, when an elector casts his vote, it's HIS vote. If he chooses to throw it away or vote for someone other than the one his State mandates, it's still his vote. All the State can do is punish him, if the law allows them to, for it.

NO ONE can change it. Not even the US Supreme Court. Nor can they just discard it because that disenfranchises the elector and the State.


You did pretty good reading all that "legaleze". Certainly much better than Mr. Stolen Valor.
 
It was a 9-0 vote that has destroyed the left's Electoral College destroying dreams.
 
We shall see what it means functionally and by interpretation by the states. The mainstream press has already interpreted as "force the vote to go as pledged." The Supreme Court case was about votes in the past.
 
Does it not occur to certain people that the 'go-to'
mainstream press is pursuing an agenda?




Just because they all say the same thing
does not really make something true

which is why

attention should be paid to alternative news
since too much news is now thinly-guised opinion
bolstered by cherry-picked facts and circumstances...
 
KeithD said:
We shall see what it means functionally and by interpretation by the states. The mainstream press has already interpreted as "force the vote to go as pledged." The Supreme Court case was about votes in the past.
Click to expand...


The State has only 2 options.

1. Punish the elector after the fact with fines and/or imprisonment.
2. Remove the elector before the vote if the State learns that the elector is not going to vote as directed.


Beyond that, there's no 3rd option. Unless you believe that holding a gun to the elector's head while he casts his vote is a plausible idea.
 
Again I ask, if Electors are mandated to vote according to State rules, why have Electors? Why not automate the EC system to calculate the electoral vote based on the popular vote. Why the Dog and Pony show?

Would that require a Constitutional Amendment or is that something the States could do under the current system,?
 
jaF0 said:
Again I ask, if Electors are mandated to vote according to State rules, why have Electors? Why not automate the EC system to calculate the electoral vote based on the popular vote. Why the Dog and Pony show?

Would that require a Constitutional Amendment or is that something the States could do under the current system,?
Click to expand...

It would require a Constitutional Amendment to eliminate the EC. At which point we'd no longer have a Republic.

A Republic is a form of representational government. In representational forms of government, the people don't "run" the nation directly, they elect representatives to do that for them.

The EC is a body of such representatives which gathers every 4 years for 1 task.



In democratic forms of government, nothing is done by those in office. Everything is done by referendum or vote with the majority will being the final outcome on any issue.

One need only look at the UK and the Brexit fiasco to see how well that system works.




The EC could be automated, but who wants to be elected President of the US by a computer? (Well, who other than me would want to be elected that way. I still wanna be President.)
 
Last edited:
One issue with that and that the ruling doesn't account for is the notion of suitability and fitness for Office. The Electors are said to be a a Failsafe of sorts. They're supposed to know more than the public about who is fit to serve (no, I don't have a citation for that). That was one of the hopes and arguments in '16 ... that the Electors would recognize the The Don was unstable, irrational and unfit to serve, which has certainly proved to be true. The drive was for the Electors to kick into Failsafe more and protect the Office from an unfit candidate. They didn't do so and the entire world is paying the price.
 
jaF0 said:
One issue with that and that the ruling doesn't account for is the notion of suitability and fitness for Office. The Electors are said to be a a Failsafe of sorts. They're supposed to know more than the public about who is fit to serve (no, I don't have a citation for that). That was one of the hopes and arguments in '16 ... that the Electors would recognize the The Don was unstable, irrational and unfit to serve, which has certainly proved to be true. The drive was for the Electors to kick into Failsafe more and protect the Office from an unfit candidate. They didn't do so and the entire world is paying the price.
Click to expand...

So, on the one hand you want the EC to vote like they're told to (or be computerized) and on the other hand you want them to vote based on their ideals (so long as those are also YOUR ideals).


Why is it that I can see a major flaw in your plan and you cannot?
 
A bit of reading showed a late 60s proposal to eliminate the system for one that I believe some states have. The top two vote getters would be P and VP regardless of their parties provided they got a minimum of 40% of the PV.
 
jaF0 said:
A bit of reading showed a late 60s proposal to eliminate the system for one that I believe some states have. The top two vote getters would be P and VP regardless of their parties provided they got a minimum of 40% of the PV.
Click to expand...


That was an attempt to reverse the current EC process to the original model the framers created.

It didn't work so the Constitution was amended to create the system we now use.


Wiki has a good article on this.
 
Awarding all of a state's electoral votes to a candidate that gets less than 50% of the state's popular votes is a big flaw. A faithful elector should be someone who votes the proportion. That may not be resolved for the life of the USA, but constitutional writers of new nations may keep that in mind.
 
Ziggins said:
Awarding all of a state's electoral votes to a candidate that gets less than 50% of the state's popular votes is a big flaw. A faithful elector should be someone who votes the proportion.
Click to expand...

How do you figure?

It's the United States, not the Unified Peoples Democracy of America.

Ziggins said:
That may not be resolved for the life of the USA
Click to expand...

One can only hope, as it's not something to resolve but preserve.

Ziggins said:
but constitutional writers of new nations may keep that in mind.
Click to expand...

Sure....let us know how that mob rule direct democracy works out. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
What good is the Electoral College?
2 3
Replies
71
Views
2K
YDB95
YDB95
Rightguide
Why The SCOTUS Might Toss 350 J6 Convictions
Replies
22
Views
562
Aglaopheme
Aglaopheme
A
US Politics - my view from the UK (long)
Replies
18
Views
578
deckardB26354
deckardB26354
Rotadom
Texas Companies Say Republicans Are Ruining Their Business
Replies
3
Views
345
RobDownSouth
RobDownSouth
Rightguide
Looks Like The SCOTUS Is getting Fed Up With Nationwide Injunctions
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
HisArpy
HisArpy
Back
Top