This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1253442
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1253442
It would seem that if we are in favor of the compact between states that would provide their electoral votes to the candidate that won the popular vote, a ruling like this would be needed to allow it.
That said, it’s concerning given the Republican’s brazen approach to unethical behavior
3 Likes
It’s easy to imagine lobbying efforts or threats aimed at electors, as well as national media campaigns or street demonstrations in front of an elector’s house.
Well, I did send letters to the electors of my home state begging them to use their deliberative powers to cast their votes for Hillary, given the hellish behavior Drumpf had already exhibited between Election Day and (??) December 10, when they cast their votes. Of course, it didn’t work, as you can probably tell.
If you want to read a funny/scary take on this, Larry Beinhart wrote a book called The Librarian. It was the first place I ever heard the term “faithless elector”. He also wrote the book American Hero, which was the basis for Wag the Dog.
6 Likes
File under “be careful what you wish for…”
8 Likes
If it is simply argued a Democrat could just as likely be installed as a Republican, SCOTUS will ban it forever.
8 Likes
This is indeed a double-edged sword. Arguably, electors could also have voted against Trump and may have, given how many mainstream Republicans opposed him. Still, the less democratic our elections, the worse we all are. SCOTUS is now a Federalist Society front. To see how it would rule on this issue, we need only check out the opinion of that far right wing legal group.
4 Likes
This is the way it has always been, and state laws cannot override the Constitution and federal law.
The Constitution was designed to let electors vote for whomever they want. The Presidential Election is merely a national popularity contest with no legal binding whatsoever on the Electors. If no candidate gets a majority vote of electoral votes, then the House selects the President, and they are not bound to choose among any of the candidates running, either bound to choose from any of the top 3 candidates with the most electoral college votes.
The Constitution and the Electoral College were designed by wealthy white men, mostly slave holders, to keep wealthy white men in power. Mission accomplished.
No democracy, no justice.
7 Likes
If the Court holds that individual electors are free to vote for whomever they want and the Democrats have a close win in the Electoral College, I hope that they make sure that all of their electors and their families are immediately placed in a witness protection program until after the official votes are cast. I have not doubt that there would be both bribery and intimidation used to have them either switch to Trump or simply to throw their votes away on a third-party candidate.
1 Like
It seems to me that the idea of “one person, one vote” would be violated by the courts ratifying faithless electors. It’s one thing for your vote to represent the will of the people of
Your state, it is another thing entirely to get a second (more powerful) vote of your own.
Easy solution: national popular vote.
16 Likes
Even if Electors were forced to vote for the popular vote winner in their state, it still does not give us a democracy. States with smaller populations have far more representation in the Electoral College than states with large populations. So the democratic principals of "one person, one vote” and “all votes are equal” are not even a part of the American Constitution. Just the opposite, in fact.
This also leads to the inconvenient truth that most votes in most states have little impact on the selection of the President, and only swing state voters make a difference (assuming the Electors vote according to their states’ popular vote).
Not so easy. It would require a Constitutional amendment and the smaller states are not going to give up their disproportionate electoral power.
7 Likes
I think this is a real issue, because a few electoral votes could easily decide 2020, and we know that it’s not Democrats who will be buying off or threatening electors. I’ve thought for some time that this will become a new battlefront, with IOKIYAR rules in effect.
5 Likes
And in the Senate.
As you say, contempt for “We the People” is baked into the Constitution.
9 Likes
To me the real danger of the Electoral College is this: Currently, most states, except Maine and Nebraska, have winner take all. Can you imagine the chaos if some states go proportional voting and some stay winner take all? Let’s say California has Electors chosen proportionally and Texas is winner take all. It gives winner take all states even more power. We are already ruled by a minority party, that would only entrench it even more.
10 Likes
I don’t have the stats to prove it, but I believe that often as not nobody wins a majority of the popular vote. Would there be runoffs, would we accept a plurality, or would the decision be made by the House? The EC was intended to be a pop-up congress “free from” some of the political pressures of the actual congress.
The Electoral College is an 18th century distrust of democracy. It needs to be eliminated.
7 Likes
Originally only white, male property owners had a vote.
2 Likes
Obama was over 50% twice.
6 Likes
I agree but you should think carefully about what you would replace it with.
1 Like
I’m wondering if individual state constitutions have bearing on this. What says the Georgetown law professor?
1 Like
Essentially, under this ruling, electors could pledge to support the presidential candidate who wins the state, but then turn around and vote for someone else.
Yes, that’s exactly how the situation is designed to work. The structure of the Electoral College is such that the people are not actually voting for a candidate, they’re voting for a slate of Electors who then, you know, Elect someone. That’s why they’re Electors. They are supposed to use their judgment. That’s the whole point. They’re there to function as a check on mass stupidity.
The Tenth Circuit got it right. Mr. Smith gets it exactly wrong.
5 Likes