Judge says electors must vote for statewide winner (Colorado)

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Yes, now Colorado, too.

As far as Congress' role, they do play a bigger part than just the under-270 scenario.

On January 6, Congress will count and certify the votes. At that time, objections to any votes will be heard -- IF the objection has one signature from the Senate and one from the House. If an objection has those signatures, Congress will deliberate the objection to see if it has merit.

You may or may not recall that some members objected to the certification of the electoral votes for GWB.

It would be through this process that Congress could actually toss out some electoral votes.

a reply to: Martin75

In actual fact no. Your nation is not a republic, or a democracy, but both. I have no confusion what so ever, I know that the entire method of governance in the US is a dirty compromise, rather than a clean, one or the other solution. However, regardless of the fact that your nation is a democratic republic (Democratic because it offers a choice of leadership to its citizens, and a republic because of precisely how the administration and for that matter the final votes are cast in its elections).

However, none of what you posted, with the greatest of respect, has anything whatsoever to do with the question I raised, which, to reiterate, is as follows:

If laws exist in certain states which make it impossible for an elector to select a candidate, other than the one selected by the popular vote, then why do those certain states have electors at all? Why, in those certain states, does the position exist, when clearly it has no power to do anything other than what its population demand?

a reply to: TrueBrit

Because up until now no faithless elector has ever been prosecuted under the various state laws. Without being prosecuted there is no standing to challenge the law. In the case of Colorado 2 of the electors filed suit to have the Colorado law suspended so they could vote for someone else. They lost that legal challenge, opening the door on prosecuting.

No state wants to become "the case of first precedence".

a reply to: Xcathdra

Half the country would see a prosecuted 'faithless elector' as a martyr.

That's the last thing this divided nation needs.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Xcathdra

Half the country would see a prosecuted 'faithless elector' as a martyr.

That's the last thing this divided nation needs.

Says a lot about the power of the darksid......err left.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Martin75


If laws exist in certain states which make it impossible for an elector to select a candidate, other than the one selected by the popular vote, then why do those certain states have electors at all? Why, in those certain states, does the position exist, when clearly it has no power to do anything other than what its population demand?

Because that is what the Constitution prescribes that the states do--they have to have a number of electors equal to the number of its representatives in the House of Representatives plus two for the number of senators (Article II, Section 1). So, it's not really a choice to do it--they must, even if it is a winner-takes-all state.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Actually, it's all contained within the 12th Amendment (this is the entire amendment with relevant sections bolded:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;-The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;-The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President-The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Please note that it is the President of the Senate (Vice President), and not the House, who counts the votes--and that's all that they do, is count the votes. The members of the senate and house can object to electoral votes, sure, but must do it in this manner:

If any objections to the Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one member of the House and one Senator. If objections are presented, the House and Senate withdraw to their respective chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out in federal law.

This will be done on January 6, according to The National Archives. That's a good link to read--has good info, like there are six sets of votes submitted by the electors, and it tells where they all go...and the date deadlines for all of the steps in the process this year. Good stuff.

We'll see if there are any objections this year, but if the states did their jobs properly (they must have had any controversies with electors finalized by yesterday, Dec. 13), there shouldn't be any issues with the votes that make their way to the Senate.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Yes. We agree. That's what I was explaining, although truncated.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

So, let me get this straight.

The position exists, but it has no power, meaning that in actual fact, there is no difference between having a state whose people directly vote for their preferred candidate, and a state which elects its candidate by way of an appointed elector?

Because you cannot have it both ways. Either they absolutely have the right to select whomsoever they see fit, or the position is simply ceremonial, and this recent kerfuffle means absolutely nothing, as do the particulars of the electoral process in the United States. I mean, is the position legitimate, or is it just flim flam?

a reply to: TrueBrit

Because up until now no faithless elector has ever been prosecuted under the various state laws. Without being prosecuted there is no standing to challenge the law. In the case of Colorado 2 of the electors filed suit to have the Colorado law suspended so they could vote for someone else. They lost that legal challenge, opening the door on prosecuting.

No state wants to become "the case of first precedence".


finally looking back in history its never been an issue until now.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You are not understanding the point, and I do not know why...

Let me see...

If there are legal counters to a faithless elector, then the position is not legitimate, has no power, does not need to exist. If there are constitutional preventatives in place in some states, but not others, in those states where there are such preventatives in place, the position should not exist, is pointless. Only in a state where the elector can do precisely as their conscience dictates when it comes to the vote, does there need to be any such appointed position, because unless the position holds a certain power, then it ought not have a name, and there ought be no office or pretense of power in that office.

Do you understand now?

If the generally held understanding is that they can do a thing, but that they cannot really do a thing, then the end result is that they do not, cannot and will not do a thing, therefore their entire position, their appointment to it, is moot, void, pointless. It serves no purpose.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: SlapMonkey

So, let me get this straight.

The position exists, but it has no power, meaning that in actual fact, there is no difference between having a state whose people directly vote for their preferred candidate, and a state which elects its candidate by way of an appointed elector?

Because you cannot have it both ways. Either they absolutely have the right to select whomsoever they see fit, or the position is simply ceremonial, and this recent kerfuffle means absolutely nothing, as do the particulars of the electoral process in the United States. I mean, is the position legitimate, or is it just flim flam?

All the world is a stage, and each must play a part.

In truth, there would not be so much post election Rhetoric had there been two or more decent candidates instead of the two neoned rat bags who were presented. The red stop light has been flashing these last couple of years, and it is pretty obvious that neither of them deserved the Presidency. Exactly what the framers through the electoral college intended to prevent. C'Est la Vie!

a reply to: MotherMayEye

If more than 37 electors fail to follow their states voters we have bigger issues than a martyr.

1. Future voter participation rate falling to almost zero, why vote when the perception will be its rigged for the elites.
2. Trump becomes the martyr, with his cabinet of generals especially mattis who commands yuge amounts of respect from the USMC. IF they stay loyal and trump fights back.
3. A president elected by the house who is perceived by the voters of having even less credibility.
4. If the house put in HRC consider the gauntlet thrown. The republican party is destroyed to the voters, except for trump. expect millions of martyrs

a reply to: TrueBrit

No I understand however, and with respect, I dont think you do.

Because the electoral system is in the Constitution it can just be ignored or modified by law. The Constitution sets up the electoral college while also at the same time giving the states the authority to run their elections. That includes passing a law that governs how an elector must act.

We do not elect using the popular vote on a national level. The people vote on Nov 8th. The electoral college votes on Dec 19th. As with our entire constitution there are checks and balances built in and the electoral college is a check and balance. Absent a person being elected who does not meet qualifications (35 years of age and a natural born citizen) the electoral college is expected to vote in the manner their state population voted.

If a person who does not meet qualifications is elected the electoral college can correct that mistake by being able to vote for someone else. The concern was electing a person whose loyalty was to an entity other than the US. Hell when the Constitution was adopted there had to be grandfather clauses put into place to account for the fact the first couple presidents were not natural born US citizens but natural born subjects of the British crown.

The goal was not to give them (electors) the authority to override the will of the people when the candidates met the qualifications. They were there on the off chance the people decided they wanted a President who was a foreign subject / did not meet qualifications. during the first decades of our new nation it was not unanimous in terms of breaking away from the crown and for some time afterwards you still had issues between the new nation and the British empire. The fact we fought a second war with them in the early 1800's speaks to that issue. The fact British ships still stopped American vessels and pressed our sailors into service for the British is another example.

The authority of the electoral college to make a change based on the narrow parameters is present and valid.

Not qualified is not the same thing as I dont like him or his views.

make sense?

I know I'm late to the party here, but...

What is the criminal penalty for voting one's conscience instead of voting for the statewide winner? Are these state laws even constitutional, considering it is a Federal election? What is to stop a state governor from pardoning individuals who disregard the law? If these questions have been answered, I'd kindly appreciate it if someone could direct me to those answers.

Thanks in advance.

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

The federal judges ruling in Colorado says the law is constitutional. While the electoral college is established by the constitution, it also says the states will run the elections.

The goal was not to vote your conscious. The goal of the electoral college is to ensure the people don't elect a person who is not qualified. The issue people seem to be having is with the term qualified. Its based on meeting the requirement to hold to office of President as established by the Constitution and is not based on a persons own opinion on whether they like a person or not.

An elector "voting their conscious" is in fact nullifying the will of the people in that state based on the electors dislike of the person and the liking of another who didnt win. The federal judge spelled it out in his ruling.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Yes, you pretty much have it right.

But, the bigger picture is that this is a good thing, because it retains the right of state sovereignty, and if the states that have a winner-take-all approach wanted to vote to change that, they could. If the federal government forced all states to do it one way only, THAT would be the real ceremonial-over-substance situation.

I'd hate to know the amount of money wasted in states that have the w-t-a approach just because they are prescribed via the constitution to have electors and submit votes in a certain manner.

EDIT: Something worth understanding is that the Electoral College exists as a compromise--one side of the argument wanted to elect the president in Congress, while the other side wanted the president elected by the states (like how they used to elect U.S. senators), if memory serves. This was the system that they devised (and was modified via the 12th Amendment), but it's pertinent to point out that a popular vote was NEVER considered as the appropriate way to elect the president during the creation of the constitution.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: TrueBrit

Because the electoral system is in the Constitution it can just be ignored or modified by law. The Constitution sets up the electoral college while also at the same time giving the states the authority to run their elections. That includes passing a law that governs how an elector must act.

Let's clarify that a little more, the ruling in Ray v. Blair was only about a state law requiring an elector to make a pledge. The Supreme court allowed that requirment as being constitutional. But, it still recognized the freedom of the elector as below,

'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'

'The ruling only held that requiring a pledge, not a vote, was constitutional and Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Douglas, 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 '


That's it expressed in the judges dissents, the Supreme Court woudln't touch an electors right as a free agent with a bargepole.
What they are saying is, the state is allowed to require a pledge if it wants. However the elector still has the right to vote for anybody, and hence the hundreds of 'faithless electors' there have been in the past. As it is I don't think there has been any court action against a 'faithless elector'.
What is very arguable, is that with Trump's record of dodgy dealings, an electoral voter may not be doing the very thing the constitution as above requires of him/her should he/she vote for Trump.

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

Also (in addition to Xcathdra's comment), the penalty differs from state to state, and it's that way specifically because the U.S. Constitution gives control of how the Electors must vote to the states. While it's a federal election, the federal mandate for the election is only concerning the number of electors per state, and how they must transmit their votes to the Senate.

It's all in the 12th Amendment...well, at least enough of the information to get you started.

As far as pardoning convicted criminals, that differs from state to state, too, I assume, so there's no simple answer to your question.

See my post here, as it has the 12th Amendment and a link to the National Archives that explain stuff pretty well.

a reply to: smurfy

That was suppose to be can't be modified.
Sorry - typo on my part.

The information you provided is correct with the exception of the latest federal court ruling in Colorado who stated Colorado state law requires the electors to vote for the person who carried the state and the electors must comply with it. He also referenced the state law in his ruling so there is no inferences that need to be made about the intent of his ruling. While the ruling only applies to Colorado electors it can be cited now should states want to enforce their state laws on requiring an elector to vote for the person who carried the state.

If the state law was invalid or violated the Constitution the judge would have said as much in a reverse ruling on the side of the plaintiffs - but he didnt.

The judges ruling also settled the meaning of qualified when he rejected the argument made by the electors to suspend the law, stating they were trying to deny the vote to the winner solely because they didnt like the person.

Daniel found that suspending the Colorado requirement would have harmed the state's voters and jeopardized a peaceful presidential transition. "Part of me thinks this is really a political stunt to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president," said Daniel

Federal law does not have to be specific because their jurisdiction is limited since the Constitution also gives the states the authority to run their elections as they see fit within the guidelines of the electoral college. Since electors behavior is not defined it falls to the states. In addition party requirements on electors are also valid.

It was never the intent for the electoral college to be used to nullify an election result based on not liking the candidate in question. It was purely designed to prevent a person from becoming President who does not meet the qualifications defined in the Constitution.

An issue for sure back the but not so much today.