Big Win for Electoral College

[wickedsolo]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/unani...hless-electors

Supreme Court, unanimously, ruled that states can go after electors that go against their respective state's voter counts for President. This happened in the 2016 campaign where three different "faithless" electors cast their electoral vote for someone other than Trump, even though Trump had won those states.

[NCRAVEN]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/unani...hless-electors

Supreme Court, unanimously, ruled that states can go after electors that go against their respective state's voter counts for President. This happened in the 2016 campaign where three different "faithless" electors cast their electoral vote for someone other than Trump, even though Trump had won those states.

Very nice.

[BPF2]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/unani...hless-electors

Supreme Court, unanimously, ruled that states can go after electors that go against their respective state's voter counts for President. This happened in the 2016 campaign where three different "faithless" electors cast their electoral vote for someone other than Trump, even though Trump had won those states.

This is a good first step, however I don't believe it covers the case of states who have recently made changes to their process to award electors based on the winner of the national popular vote. In fact the last paragraph of that article says that they specifically say that "states may outline for themselves the role of electors." It also only upholds the states right to punish faithless electors - it does not require the states to do so. So it could still happen and the state could turn a blind eye to it.

[Greg]

This is a good first step, however I don't believe it covers the case of states who have recently made changes to their process to award electors based on the winner of the national popular vote. In fact the last paragraph of that article says that they specifically say that "states may outline for themselves the role of electors." It also only upholds the states right to punish faithless electors - it does not require the states to do so. So it could still happen and the state could turn a blind eye to it.

True, but that is how the Constitution is written. States hold elections, not the federal government. And states decide how their electors will be allocated.

Only the left leaning states are using national popularity to potentially allocate electors. This can only hurt left candidates who would get all of the state electors currently but could lose all of them if they win, say CA, and lose nationally the popular vote. That would be a huge kick in the ass if the Democrat lost the popular vote but would have won the electoral college as it now stands.

[BPF2]

True, but that is how the Constitution is written. States hold elections, not the federal government. And states decide how their electors will be allocated.

Only the left leaning states are using national popularity to potentially allocate electors. This can only hurt left candidates who would get all of the state electors currently but could lose all of them if they win, say CA, and lose nationally the popular vote. That would be a huge kick in the ass if the Democrat lost the popular vote but would have won the electoral college as it now stands.

Are those states committing to do it or are they leaving open the option?

Also I think owning the urban centers (NYC, LA, CHI, etc) gives the dems such a huge head start, I think it would be damn near impossible for them to lose the national popular vote in a close election.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk