It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Forcing someone to vote a certain way for POTUS is both illegal and nonsensical

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 03:47 AM
link   
This issue is debated every four years, and there are always numerous threads such as the following.

Federal Law Does NOT Unbind Delegates

It is illegal to force someone to vote a certain way for POTUS. The main crux of this argument stems from 42 USC 1971. The relevant part of this law says:


No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate.


The Supreme Court determined that electors in the Electoral College have the right to be faithless electors.


The constitutionality of state pledge laws was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1952 in Ray v. Blair[8] in a 5–2 vote. The court ruled states have the right to require electors to pledge to vote for the candidate whom their party supports, and the right to remove potential electors who refuse to pledge prior to the election. The court also wrote:

However, even if such promises of candidates for the electoral college are legally unenforceable because violative of an assumed constitutional freedom of the elector under the Constitution, Art. II, § 1, to vote as he may choose in the electoral college, it would not follow that the requirement of a pledge in the primary is unconstitutional (emphasis added).[8]

The ruling only held that requiring a pledge, not a vote, was constitutional and Justice Jackson wrote in his dissent, "no one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated what is implicit in its text – that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices." More recent legal scholars believe "a state law that would thwart a federal elector’s discretion at an extraordinary time when it reasonably must be exercised would clearly violate Article II and the Twelfth Amendment."[9]

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote.

SOURCE


Regardless of the above, it's nonsensical to force someone to vote a certain way in any election. If someone votes under coercion and duress and against their own free will, their vote is void.
edit on 26-11-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 03:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion



The Supreme Court determined that electors in the Electoral College have the right to be faithless electors.

They have had the right since day 1. Didnt even need the Supreme Court for that . That was a big time waste of time and money....
So , your point is ?
Done
Next
edit on 11/26/16 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 03:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion
They don't need to be forced.
The electors in each state are a pre-chosen, pre-published, list of fervent party members.
They will be excited about the opportunity to play a part, even a ceremonial one, in the victory of their preferred candidate.
Nothing short of a gun being held against their heads is going to persuade them to vote the opposite way.

If you are a Democrat, just put yourself in the place of a Democrat elector.
Why would you need forcing to be faithful to your state's Democrat choice?
And why do you think any Republican elector would want to be faithless? They won't do it. You know that, if you take time to think it through.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 03:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Profusion
They don't need to be forced.
The electors in each state are a pre-chosen, pre-published, list of fervent party members.
They will be excited about the opportunity to play a part, even a ceremonial one, in the victory of their preferred candidate.
Nothing short of a gun being held against their heads is going to persuade them to vote the opposite way.

If you are a Democrat, just put yourself in the place of a Democrat elector.
Why would you need forcing to be faithful to your state's Democrat choice?
And why do you think any Republican elector would want to be faithless? They won't do it. You know that, if you take time to think it through.



You need to do some SERIOUS research into the electoral college and the Constitution
(we usually agree, but not this time)



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 04:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog
Why? How would the history of the institution affect the psychology of the situation?
Am I wrong in supposing that the pre-chosen lists of electors (the lists were published on Wikipedia in advance) would be supporters of the party which had chosen them?



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Who is being forced to do anything against their will?

Seems to me that unless the individual is being frogmarched to a booth and forced to lay an x in a particular place, or press a particular button, when they might have decided to go another way, there is no such thing happening.

Also, those receiving threats need to grow a backbone. Spineless chumps have no business being given the power to decide the fate of nations.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
Who is being forced to do anything against their will?


I have read the following concerning faithless electors in the Electoral College on this forum (paraphrasing):

"Faithless electors are engaging in sedition."

"Faithless electors are doing something illegal."

"Faithless electors are acting against the principles that America was founded on."

In my opinion, all three of those points of view are predicated on the belief that electors in the Electoral College should be forced or compelled to vote a certain way. I made this thread to answer that issue because all three of the views listed above are wrong, and forcing someone to vote a certain way for POTUS is both illegal and nonsensical.
edit on 26-11-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

But I ask again, who is ACTUALLY forcing anyone to do anything?

The answer is, no one. No one has physically coerced anyone to vote a particular way. If they had, then of course I would understand your point. But the point is that making strong public statements, calling for this, that or the other, and even threatening the life of a particular elector is NOT forcing them to vote a certain way. Its noise. It has no power what so ever, and less meaning.

It is only given meaning, if an elector decides that their fear is more powerful than their own will (proving that they should not have had the right to select anything, INCLUDING what to have for lunch), and allows those threats, strong suggestions, or other publications to alter the vote they would have made, absent those drivers.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
But I ask again, who is ACTUALLY forcing anyone to do anything?


This thread was a direct response to the people on this forum who have insinuated that faithless electors in the Electoral College are traitors to the United States. Unfortunately, those people have decided not to post in this thread. I believe the reason for that is because the original post in this thread makes their claims on the issue look foolish.

Who is actually forcing anyone to do anything?

No one is forcing anyone to do anything now. Some people on this forum insinuate that state laws that impose a fine on faithless electors essentially force electors in the Electoral College to vote a certain way. That's obviously coercive and illegal. Others on this forum claim that faithless electors will become pariahs in politics and that will essentially force them to vote a certain way. That sounds like a type of coercion to me. Some on this forum have insinuated that faithless electors could have revenge taken against them. That sounds like a type of coercion to me.

This thread was directed at a mindset which involves the belief that electors in the Electoral College should be forced or compelled to vote a certain way.

My point is that while no one is forcing electors in the Electoral College to vote a certain way now, it's clear to me that many on this forum want it to be that way in the future (and/or they're pretending that's the way it is now). That's what this thread is about. It's about the mindset that wants that and thinks it's just.

This thread is directed at the idea that forcing someone to vote a certain way for POTUS is acceptable. This thread is directed at a certain mindset only. It is not directed at a reality that currently exists.
edit on 26-11-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion


OK I'll be the guy. Any faithless elector will be traitors to their party. Any faithless elector who disrupt the outcome of our election are scum and should be held responsible for the fall-out from their selfish actions. Ringface and Snowflake will have to go hide at their parents house if the real people of the US are pushed too far.
Do you write this qrap for fun or are you a pinko agitator?



edit on 26-11-2016 by ezramullins because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: ezramullins
Do you write this qrap for fun or are you a pinko agitator?


Nice false dichotomy there.

I have the Constitution, a Supreme Court decision, and federal law to support my case. People like you brush all that aside and call it "traitorous" or the like to follow the supreme law of the land. If following the law is "traitorous" then how do you define patriotism?

Incidentally, I'm here for fun 95% of the time.

edit on 26-11-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join