U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Both Presidential Elector Cases

On January 17, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted both the Colorado and Washington cases on whether presidential electors may vote for any qualified candidate when they vote in the electoral college, or whether they must vote for the person who got the most popular votes in their state. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news. The two cases are Colorado Department of State v Baca, 19-518; and Chiafalo v Washington, 19-465. The court will allow an hour of argument, in contrast to the usual 30 minutes.


Comments

U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Both Presidential Elector Cases — 8 Comments

  1. The SCOTUS MORONS set the stage for Civil War II already in the Rucho gerrymander case in June 2019.

    More fuel for more WAR in the faithless Prez electors cases ???

    CERTAIN DEATH for any such ***faithless*** Electors in Dec 2020 [and ALL their relatives, friends and neighbors] ???

    The top gangster communists/fascists want POWER to control the USA and rest of world [aka ROW].

  2. BASIC agency LAW —

    the EC persons are APPOINTED/ELECTED on condition that they comply with the election results that got them appointed/elected.

    Too difficult for the SCOTUS MORONS ???

    — capable only of causing Civil WARS ???
    See 1857 Dred Scott op. >>> 750,000 DEAD in 1861-1866.

  3. Coming summary action in later cases ??

    — just in time for July-Nov chaos machinations by the gangster HACKS ???

    Both major gangs love the minority rule gerrymanders math — 25 pct of votes = 100 pct of POWER.

  4. Wow, it’s really surprising that the U.S. Supreme Court chose to accept this case. Should they rule in favor of the Electors I would expect that ruling would, for all time (or at least until a reversal/modification of the decision should be made) neutralize the National Popular Vote scheme. The opposite might embolden even more “faithless” Electors in future Presidential elections which could make things a WHOLE lot more interesting in the next real close Presidential election.

  5. I think that a ruling allowing the Electors to change their vote won’t really change the outcome because when a few (or up to 50% or more of the Electors) change their vote under approval voting (AppV) it doesn’t change much.

    The Electors holding two votes, one for vote Prez and one vote for VP, will still bring a one-party system as AppV is a one-party system.

    Should the court rule in favor of the Electors, then should popular opinion of the majority faction change because of resignation or death of Prez or VP, then that freedom will be helpful under AppV.

    The real change comes when limited voting is used by Electors because limited voting brings the three-party system.

    The new United Coalition USA has been using limited voting and ranked choice voting in multiple-winner election districts for more than twenty-four consecutive years and this brings the 539-party system to the 538-member Electoral College.

    Under limited voting we can count the votes to elect either two winners or 538 winners and both cases we can calibrate down to have plenty of consecutively ranked names as back-ups with one set of correctly paper ballots under the strict math of pure proportional representation.

  6. @Deemer,

    The simple solution would be for the presidential candidate to file, and include the name of the vice-presidential candidate and the elector candidates, along with the consent of the VP candidate and the elector candidates, who would pledge to support the candidate with a signed affidavit and a video of the pledge with the candidate, both posted to the SOS web site. There would be a video of the elector candidate pledging to vote for the presidential candidate, followed by the signing, and optionally shaking the hand of the presidential candidate (he might not attend all such ceremonies but would certainly hit major states).

    If a political party wanted to, it could endorse the presidential candidate and have its name appear on ballots adjacent to the presidential candidate. Independent slates of selectors could also file, but they could not be associated with a presidential candidate.

  7. JR –

    How about HACK pledges before pre-skoool classes to vote like good little boys and girls or new age uni-sex folks ???

    For Adults –

    ABOLISH the DEADLY timebomb EC and ALL the ROT with it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.