The Supremes voted 9-0 that states could require electors to do what they were pledged to do, specifically cast their vote in the Electoral College for the candidate who won the popular vote in their state (or in their congressional district in Maine and Nebraska).
That settles the question of the "faithless elector" who doesn't like the candidate for whom he/she is supposed to vote, so casts a vote for somebody else. There was a lot of pressure in 2000 led by Bob Beckel to get voters pledged to Bush to vote for Gore because of the Florida controversy, and there were some anti-Trump and anti-Clinton sentiments in 2016.
I'm neither a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar, so I'm awaiting the comments of people who might possibly know what they're talking about, but it seems to me that this decision may cause more of a problem to the way we select presidents than it removes.
There's a movement to have states agree that they will instruct their voters to vote for the winner of the national popular vote, rather than the winner of the popular vote in their state. If Iowa were in on this, for example, Iowa's electoral votes would have been cast not for Trump, who won Iowa pretty easily, but for Clinton, because she won the national popular vote.
It's a procedure intended to get around the Electoral College without amending the Constitution. So far, 15 states and DC have signed on. There are a lot of legal questions about it, but today's ruling certainly doesn't do anything to prohibit it.
Something to think about other than sports and the plague and mass rioting and globall warming, at least.
That settles the question of the "faithless elector" who doesn't like the candidate for whom he/she is supposed to vote, so casts a vote for somebody else. There was a lot of pressure in 2000 led by Bob Beckel to get voters pledged to Bush to vote for Gore because of the Florida controversy, and there were some anti-Trump and anti-Clinton sentiments in 2016.
I'm neither a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar, so I'm awaiting the comments of people who might possibly know what they're talking about, but it seems to me that this decision may cause more of a problem to the way we select presidents than it removes.
There's a movement to have states agree that they will instruct their voters to vote for the winner of the national popular vote, rather than the winner of the popular vote in their state. If Iowa were in on this, for example, Iowa's electoral votes would have been cast not for Trump, who won Iowa pretty easily, but for Clinton, because she won the national popular vote.
It's a procedure intended to get around the Electoral College without amending the Constitution. So far, 15 states and DC have signed on. There are a lot of legal questions about it, but today's ruling certainly doesn't do anything to prohibit it.
Something to think about other than sports and the plague and mass rioting and globall warming, at least.
