Judge says electors must vote for statewide winner (Colorado)

a reply to: Xcathdra

Voting against the will of the people is basically them telling the people of that state that they are not to be trusted to vote. It would set a terrible precedent for the future.

I don't see how anyone can think that's the answer.

The highest number of faithless electors in the past has been 63, but only because the president elect Greeley died between the election and the electoral college vote.

The next highest was 32, but did not effect the outcome.

Here is a state by state list - the amber rows have no pledge to the winning state ticket at all. The green have pledges but many are not enforced beyond a fine.
Source : The Green Papers

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: Xcathdra

Voting against the will of the people is basically them telling the people of that state that they are not to be trusted to vote. It would set a terrible precedent for the future.

I don't see how anyone can think that's the answer.

Look up the entire purpose of the electoral college, well half the purpose anyhow.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Labor and education nominees have political experience. Sec of Education was involved in MI politics at the state level for the Republican party.

The labor nominee was an economic advisor to Mitt Romneys campaign.

As for Treasury and Commerce I would think we would want politics out of those areas.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: Xcathdra

Voting against the will of the people is basically them telling the people of that state that they are not to be trusted to vote. It would set a terrible precedent for the future.

I don't see how anyone can think that's the answer.

Look up the entire purpose of the electoral college, well half the purpose anyhow.

I agree to an extent. In this case though I believe they just dont like Trump which is not grounds to not vote for him in the electoral college. Can you imagine what would happen if Clinton won and Trump were doing the very thing being done to him?

All the Dems have left is the Russia crap however this ruling sets a precedent with other states that have similar laws so it may have just shut the door to the electoral college briefing about Russia in hopes of trying to sway their vote from Trump.

Either way what the Dems are doing is going to bite them in the ass down the road.

originally posted by: UKTruth
The highest number of faithless electors in the past has been 63, but only because the president elect Heely dies between the election and the electoral college vote.

The next highest was 32, but did not effect the outcome.

Here is a state by state list - the amber rows have no pledge to the winning state ticket at all. The green have pledges but many are not enforced beyond a fine.
Source : The Green Papers

This was a historically unliked presidential campaign for 70 percent of the population. Historically bad numbers for both candidates. So the out come is totally expected.

Nobody wanted either of these people so the little push by wikileaks, fbi, Russia could have been an actual factor in such a crap election.

My take is its done let it go, nobody wants the other lady either so let's just move on, impeach later if any actual collaborative wrong doing is found. People are going to watch these cabinet picks like hawks. It's only 4 years.

But laughing my ass off at the hypocrisy.

originally posted by: Martin75
I don't see how anyone can think that's the answer.

Well its the same people who think storing classified info on a private server for ease of use was the answer.

a reply to: TerminalVelocity

I've done quite a bit of research into the electoral college and state laws governing them, and I don't recall any state laws that will "throw out" an electors vote if they don't follow the prescribed law in the state. That said, there are plenty of personal legal ramifications for now following the state laws, but most are tantamount to a slap on the wrist, so if someone was devoted enough to ignoring the law, not much back would fall on them.

It seems that it is a little different in Colorado--they don't "throw out" the vote of the faithless elector, per se, but they do replace the elector with an alternate who will vote following the law (via The Denver Post:

Some states impose fines. Others, like Colorado, don’t allow for so-called “faithless electors.” If an elector does not cast a vote for the right candidate, they are removed and replaced with a new elector, according to the Colorado secretary of state’s office.

and a bit more info, just for fun:

For one thing, even if renegade electors could force an Electoral College deadlock, to defeat Trump would require a Republican-majority House to vote against its own presidential nominee. That would risk the ire of the millions who voted for him, and only fuel Trump’s prior warnings of a “rigged” election.

...

Even before this latest effort, Baca considered voting against Clinton when the Electoral College meets Dec. 19. He is a supporter of Bernie Sanders.

...

“We cannot just rip up the Paris climate accord,” Baca said. “We cannot have a climate denialist (in the White House).”

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: Xcathdra

Voting against the will of the people is basically them telling the people of that state that they are not to be trusted to vote. It would set a terrible precedent for the future.

I don't see how anyone can think that's the answer.

Look up the entire purpose of the electoral college, well half the purpose anyhow.

I agree to an extent. In this case though I believe they just dont like Trump which is not grounds to not vote for him in the electoral college. Can you imagine what would happen if Clinton won and Trump were doing the very thing being done to him?

All the Dems have left is the Russia crap however this ruling sets a precedent with other states that have similar laws so it may have just shut the door to the electoral college briefing about Russia in hopes of trying to sway their vote from Trump.

Either way what the Dems are doing is going to bite them in the ass down the road.

If clinton won I fully expected Trump to do the same thing. So yes I can imagine it.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Michigan and Minnesota have state laws that invalidate the vote of a faithless elector. They can replace a faithless elector with one who will vote in line with state law.

either way, imo, there seems to be a push to make faithless electors the new super delegates of the Democratic party.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I think it's pretty much left to Congress to decide whether or not to count and certify any electoral votes.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: marg6043

Whats interesting was the judge stating it would cause harm to the residents of the state if an elector votes for someone other than who won the state. I never bothered to look at it in-depth from that viewpoint before and it makes sense.

Essentially the electors would be usurping the will of the people and creating a situation that would prevent a peaceful transition of power. Those 2 points completely undermine the lefts position. This also could potentially put to rest the "russia hacked the election" bs being pushed.

The judge was appointed by Bill Clinton.

Those points have beenpointed out by people in various comments section and even some Democrats lately.

This whole charade is deeply dangerous, but this is what happens when people get used to the idea that the vote and an election can be overturned if you simply try hard enough. The precedent for it is there with the way state ballot initiatives have been negated in the recent past. Now we an go back and refight those battles in other threads, rightly or wrongly, but the message they have created in doing it increasingly often is that any vote can be overturned if you simply want it badly enough.

So now here we are arguing over how easy it would be to overturn the vote and election to the highest office in the land if a committed minority simply wants it to happen badly enough and finds enough excuses to invalidate the long-standing legal process by which it has been done.

a reply to: ketsuko

I see the democrats are shifting the argument once again, moving away from Russia hacked the elections to concentrating solely now on the wikileaks releases.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm talking about governing experience.

It's different to work WITH a government department, then to try and run THAT government department. A business person who has done business with the education dept for example, doesn't have political and governing experience for that sector of the government.

No more than I don't have experience running a McDonald's because I eat there twice a year.

~Tenth

a reply to: tothetenthpower

And yet, somehow, this country stumbled along without professionbal politicians for a very long time and managed to not implode.

One of the reasons I think you see Trump instead of Clinton is BECAUSE people are sick and tired of professional politicians of BOTH parties.

Yes, this could go very wrong, but it might not, too. But if we never give it a sot, we'll also never know.

a reply to: ketsuko

I really really really really really really really hope, that Trump isn't a terrible POTUS.

As should all of us. That includes giving him a chance.

I don't mind the selections, I just think it will hurt his agenda short term.

~Tenth

a reply to: Xcathdra

Maybe those two anti-Trump Electors in Colorado will continue to lead by example and jump off a cliff. That way they can deny Donald Trump 2 votes this coming Monday.

Are there back-up Electors, in case a primary Elector gets sick..or jumps off a cliff?

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Xcathdra

Maybe those two anti-Trump Electors in Colorado will continue to lead by example and jump off a cliff. That way they can deny Donald Trump 2 votes this coming Monday.

Are there back-up Electors, in case a primary Elector gets sick..or jumps off a cliff?

Colorado actually has 5 electors who wanted to vote for someone other than Clinton. Colorado went to Clinton so the states electors are required to vote for her and not Trump. The same holds for the faithless electors in Washington state. The 2 faithless electors from Texas were the only ones bound to Trump.

Its one of the main reasons I kept saying messing with the electoral college was not going to work as it stood at the time.

Each states have their own laws governing the replacement of electors for one reason or another. MI and MN are the only 2 states that can replace electors who refuse to vote for the person who won the state. Texas has laws where they can replace an elector before a vote.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Judge says electors must vote for statewide winner

Well this settles the elector issue out of Colorado. A Federal judge has ruled electors must vote for the person who won the state. The fact the law was upheld tells me other states with similar laws will also prevail in any court challenge. It also puts to rest the constitutionality of state laws requiring electors to vote for the person who won the state.

While the electoral college is established by the US Constitution its up to the states to run the elections.

So now we are back to 2 or 3 electors from other states who want to vote for someone else.

I am curious what excuse the Democrats will use now to try and end run around the Constitution.

The electors can vote for whomever they please, that's their right, and it's supported by the Supreme Court.
Of course they can be fined by the state court, or put in gaol, but they cannot force the elector/s to vote for someone they don't want to vote for. The state court may also consider an electoral vote void.

www.libertylawsite.org...

The above is just one source, there are many more, including a Supreme Court ruling.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Xcathdra

Maybe those two anti-Trump Electors in Colorado will continue to lead by example and jump off a cliff. That way they can deny Donald Trump 2 votes this coming Monday.

Are there back-up Electors, in case a primary Elector gets sick..or jumps off a cliff?

Colorado actually has 5 electors who wanted to vote for someone other than Clinton. Colorado went to Clinton so the states electors are required to vote for her and not Trump. The same holds for the faithless electors in Washington state. The 2 faithless electors from Texas were the only ones bound to Trump.

Its one of the main reasons I kept saying messing with the electoral college was not going to work as it stood at the time.

Each states have their own laws governing the replacement of electors for one reason or another. MI and MN are the only 2 states that can replace electors who refuse to vote for the person who won the state. Texas has laws where they can replace an elector before a vote.

And we already have an elector here in Texas who resigned.