Use this link to watch the oral argument in the Washington State Supreme Court in Guerra v Washington State (also known as In Re Guerra). This is the “faithless electors” case in which three Democratic presidential electors were each fined $1,000 for voting for someone other than Hillary Clinton.
The attorney for the electors made an analogy to a federal judge who had been appointed after telling the President that he or she would vote a certain way in a future case. He also made the analogy to U.S. Senators in the days when state legislatures appointed Senators, and in which the potential Senator promised the state legislature that he would vote a certain way.
The attorney for the state responded to a question about whether presidential electors might use a secret ballot in December when they are serving as electors. The attorney for the state said a secret ballot is impossible. However, at least one state has used secret ballots when presidential electors vote. Minnesota had secret ballots for electors in 2004. A Democratic presidential elector in 2004 voted for John Edwards for President instead of John Kerry. To this day, no one knows which elector voted that way. It has always been believed that the elector made an absent-minded clerical error, but no one can ask the elector because no elector has ever confessed to being the elector who did that. Thanks to Professor Derek Muller for the links to the two faithless elector hearings.
One more reason to ABOLISH the entire EVIL ROTTED EC MESS with the EVIL MONSTERS playing rig-the-results — aka gaming the *system*.
And risk having future presidential elections controlled by large cities controlled by state-of-mind socialists? I have no problem with the Electoral College. It’s the idea of direct democracy that should give one pause. The Founding Fathers disliked the idea of democracy, which of course, leads to mob rule.
Texas uses a secret ballot. It is possible that the Constitution requires such. Viva voce would be the alternative to a paper ballot.
It may violate separation of powers to have a Secretary of State preside over the meeting of electors. The SOS might arrange the meeting hall, provision ale and victuals, and stables for the electors horses, but once they are sworn in and elect a presiding chair, it is up to the electors themselves.
Washington should directly elect presidential electors. Presidential candidates could endorse electors.
I agree with direct election of presidential electors. In fact, EVERYONE who reads BAN should because it would allow minor party and independent candidates much easier access. Instead of having to petition statewide, individuals could petition themselves on just in their own PE district which would be smaller than a congressional district since there are always two more PEs than their are US Reps. Also, there would be none of this nonsense of presidential nominees being required to name their slate of electors because the electors would all be their own candidates, and all out pressing the flesh actually campaigning.
I can just imagine election night where instead of just 50 states for which to call results, there would be 538 districts. The media would go nuts agonizing for the minutia of results to come in and I would relish in that.
RE: John Edwards, Perhaps he had a song stuck in his head and was thinking of this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0t2EYsJ30s
Democracy vs MONARCHY/OLIGARCHY KILLER/ENSLAVER elites — for 6,000 plus years.
Which has directly caused more domestic and foreign EVIL ??? Duh.
Recent major examples — WW I and WW II.
SMASH the monarch/oligarch regimes to very small bits
— then put the mess in the nearest history junkyard [NOT to be re-cycled]
— along with divine right of kings, slavery, etc.
—
PR and AppV