https://m.washingtontimes.com/

This is a fascinating under the radar case that will most likely go to the Supreme Court.

If you go back it seems to me to the intent of the Founders was for the Electoral college to be like a counsel of Cardinals who come together outside of public pressure and cast their vote. If they could not come to a majority, which was expected to happen more often, than the House, the body directly elected by the people, would pick the President.

With the rise of political parties almost instantly it never worked out like that

(08-21-2019 04:47 PM)solohawks Wrote:  https://m.washingtontimes.com/

This is a fascinating under the radar case that will most likely go to the Supreme Court.

If you go back it seems to me to the intent of the Founders was for the Electoral college to be like a counsel of Cardinals who come together outside of public pressure and cast their vote. If they could not come to a majority, which was expected to happen more often, than the House, the body directly elected by the people, would pick the President.

With the rise of political parties almost instantly it never worked out like that

This is hardly new. It has happened several times before.

Humorous that the Dems tried to flip Republican electors and flipped more Dem electors.

States were beginning to outlaw and change the votes of faithless electors. If being a faithless elector was confirmed as constitutional it might embolden others

(08-21-2019 09:36 PM)solohawks Wrote:  States were beginning to outlaw and change the votes of faithless electors. If being a faithless elector was confirmed as constitutional it might embolden others

So its an issue of state law vs. electors.

Parties just need to do a better job vetting electors. 7 flakes the last election, 5 of them Democrats.

The Founders intended the Electoral College to vote its mind. That is beyond a shadow of a doubt.

We may WANT them to follow the will of the people in their state (or in the case of Maine & Nebraska, the people in their district). But that would require a constitutional Amendment.

I think that Amendment would pass in relatively short order. And it would be good for the country. Public confidence in our institutions is at the lowest point in a century, largely because our leaders spend all their time on a few issues that the public is divided on. The Amendment process would show the public that when we actually agree on something, our government is pretty effective at getting things done.

We need to be careful about amending our constitution. We can’t just arbitrarily change our country’s most important document because an election didn’t turn out the way pundits thought it would.

Now if 6 more states want to vote for an article V Constitutional Convention, all bets are off.

(08-22-2019 11:21 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  We need to be careful about amending our constitution. We can’t just arbitrarily change our country’s most important document because an election didn’t turn out the way pundits thought it would.

Now if 6 more states want to vote for an article V Constitutional Convention, all bets are off.

Delaware (2016), New Mexico (2017), Maryland (2017), and Nevada (2017) rescinded their request or else the magic number would be 2

Most of the states that have passes are red states
Mi, WI, PA, are traditionally blue and have passed the request

SC, ID, MT, and KY are 4 red states that have NOT passed.

(08-22-2019 12:51 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 11:21 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  We need to be careful about amending our constitution. We can’t just arbitrarily change our country’s most important document because an election didn’t turn out the way pundits thought it would.
Now if 6 more states want to vote for an article V Constitutional Convention, all bets are off.

Delaware (2016), New Mexico (2017), Maryland (2017), and Nevada (2017) rescinded their request or else the magic number would be 2
Most of the states that have passes are red states
Mi, WI, PA, are traditionally blue and have passed the request
SC, ID, MT, and KY are 4 red states that have NOT passed.

I would vote NO 1000 times on this, and I hope the people who claim to want it come to their senses. A constitutional convention opens everything up, and given the number and kind of goofballs running this country right now, I have zero expectation that any improvement would come from such an effort.

(08-22-2019 01:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 12:51 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 11:21 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  We need to be careful about amending our constitution. We can’t just arbitrarily change our country’s most important document because an election didn’t turn out the way pundits thought it would.
Now if 6 more states want to vote for an article V Constitutional Convention, all bets are off.

Delaware (2016), New Mexico (2017), Maryland (2017), and Nevada (2017) rescinded their request or else the magic number would be 2
Most of the states that have passes are red states
Mi, WI, PA, are traditionally blue and have passed the request
SC, ID, MT, and KY are 4 red states that have NOT passed.

I would vote NO 1000 times on this, and I hope the people who claim to want it come to their senses. A constitutional convention opens everything up, and given the number and kind of goofballs running this country right now, I have zero expectation that any improvement would come from such an effort.

I agree. We do not have cultural leaders of the calibar to create a constitution

(08-22-2019 05:33 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 01:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 12:51 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 11:21 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  We need to be careful about amending our constitution. We can’t just arbitrarily change our country’s most important document because an election didn’t turn out the way pundits thought it would.
Now if 6 more states want to vote for an article V Constitutional Convention, all bets are off.

Delaware (2016), New Mexico (2017), Maryland (2017), and Nevada (2017) rescinded their request or else the magic number would be 2
Most of the states that have passes are red states
Mi, WI, PA, are traditionally blue and have passed the request
SC, ID, MT, and KY are 4 red states that have NOT passed.

I would vote NO 1000 times on this, and I hope the people who claim to want it come to their senses. A constitutional convention opens everything up, and given the number and kind of goofballs running this country right now, I have zero expectation that any improvement would come from such an effort.

I agree. We do not have cultural leaders of the calibar to create a constitution

I agree.

But I still think that allowing states to place their own rules on faithless electors is a good idea. I would support a stand-alone Amendment to that effect.

(08-22-2019 08:00 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 05:33 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 01:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 12:51 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 11:21 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  We need to be careful about amending our constitution. We can’t just arbitrarily change our country’s most important document because an election didn’t turn out the way pundits thought it would.
Now if 6 more states want to vote for an article V Constitutional Convention, all bets are off.

Delaware (2016), New Mexico (2017), Maryland (2017), and Nevada (2017) rescinded their request or else the magic number would be 2
Most of the states that have passes are red states
Mi, WI, PA, are traditionally blue and have passed the request
SC, ID, MT, and KY are 4 red states that have NOT passed.

I would vote NO 1000 times on this, and I hope the people who claim to want it come to their senses. A constitutional convention opens everything up, and given the number and kind of goofballs running this country right now, I have zero expectation that any improvement would come from such an effort.

I agree. We do not have cultural leaders of the calibar to create a constitution

I agree.

But I still think that allowing states to place their own rules on faithless electors is a good idea. I would support a stand-alone Amendment to that effect.

I have no problem with that. If you really get down to it, there is nothing preventing a state legislature from taking control of their state's electors. You do not have a constitutional right to vote for president

Quote:But I still think that allowing states to place their own rules on faithless electors is a good idea.

(08-22-2019 08:06 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I have no problem with that. If you really get down to it, there is nothing preventing a state legislature from taking control of their state's electors. You do not have a constitutional right to vote for president

My take on it is that a state legislature can specifically direct the manner in which the state's electors are appointed.

But they cannot control nor direct *how* those electors so selected actually vote when the time comes to vote.

I think it clear that since the state cannot direct how they vote, that precludes the state punishing any faithless elector in any manner. The power and methods are crystal clear.

Allowing a state to punish would be equivalent to transferring the power on how to vote to the state. And the Constitution is very clear that the only group holding the power to select the President, exclusive of any other person, group, or entity, are those electors.