Supreme Court Seems Ready to Allow Crackdown on ‘Faithless’ Presidential Electors

[rayg]

Interesting vote by the Supreme Court were it Seems Ready to Allow Crackdown on ‘Faithless’ Presidential Electors.
Some Electors didn't like Trump so they voted for other people.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard two cases asking whether members of the Electoral College are bound by laws requiring them to support the winner of the popular vote in their state.
Wednesday's cases involve six electors who were fined or disqualified because they voted for candidates of their own choosing in 2016, instead of abiding by the result of the vote in their state. The justices seemed ready to say that laws punishing so-called faithless electors are constitutionally permissible. Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia have such laws.

https://freebeacon.com/courts/supreme-court-seems-ready-to-allow-crackdown-on-faithless-presidential-electors/

[togor]

Does Ray have an opinion on the subject? Curious, not baiting a trap.

[S.A. Boggs]

Does Ray have an opinion on the subject? Curious, not baiting a trap.

How say ye?
Sam

[lyman]

Ray,

would bet he is for electors to vote the way they have been in the past, (not by popular vote, )


togor

definitely for the popular vote, IIRC he has said so in the past,



just my guess based on past posts,


btw, popular vote is the wrong way,

and an elector voting outside of what they should based on the constitution,, should be removed and replaced,

[togor]

Well that thread is ruined.

I'm not a proponent of popular vote, never have been, can explain why, but some people will insist I don't mean what I say so there's no point.

[Vern Humphrey]

Electors must vote for the candidate they are pledged to vote for -- on the first vote. If there is no winner, they are free to change their votes on subsequent canvasses.

If it were not so, the result would be total deadlock.