SCotUS might decide the election this month: Electoral College

[UTUSN]

***********QUOTE*********

https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-decide-future-electoral-121738828.html

Supreme Court to decide the future of the Electoral College

.... This month the Supreme Court will rule on the independent powers of electors, which will determine the meaning of the Electoral College in contemporary American politics. ....

Even before the 2016 election, some states had tried to limit the discretion of electors. Colorado passed a law that allowed faithless electors to be replaced immediately with an alternate, and Washington imposed a US$1,000 fine for electors who voted differently from the public at large. Two faithless electors – Michael Baca and Peter Chiafalo – challenged the ability of states to restrict their discretion under the Constitution.

The debate at the court is about whether the U.S. still has elements of an elite democracy that cannot be altered by individual states, or if state legislatures can create a popular democracy within their borders by making electors simply registrars of the popular will – even though the constitutional text (and Alexander Hamilton’s plans) may suggest that electors should make their decisions freely. ....

On the other hand, the usual liberal position – living constitutionalism – is clear. It supports the idea that the U.S. has evolved into a popular democracy regardless of the original intent. Binding electors to the vote of the state is simply the mechanism to achieve the representative elections that most Americans believe the country already has.

If the states win, they will be allowed to set the future rules for how electors may vote. If enough states bind electors, then the election will proceed as the public expects. But if the faithless electors win, the 2020 election results may be unclear far beyond Election Day. ....

*********UNQUOTE********

[brooklynite]

1. Misleading and Meaningless...

The "future of the Electoral College" is not up for discussion. As for the rights of Electors, the Sanders brigade didn't capture any State Party leadership positions this time around, so there won't be any appointment of disloyal Democratic Electors this time.

[UTUSN]

2. Is the case being decided specifically about "Democratic Electors"?

[brooklynite]

14. It is being decided about Electors in general...

What Republican Electors choose to do is not my concern.

[UTUSN]

16. So... - moot!1

[Salviati]

3. If electors aren't going to be bound...

... it just means that they're going to have to be even more highly vetted before selection. They're going to have to be people with a lot to lose if they break faith with the party that put them in place.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. In another thread I mentioned that the Constitution gives the states the absolute right...

to decide how electors are chosen.

Why the Court is getting involved is a mystery to me. Did lower courts rule in a way the the Supremes want to clear up?

Yes, it hasn't happened yet, but enough rogue electors could change the presumed elected President, or throw the election to Congress. But, what are the chances of that happening? Electors are generally the party faithful, and rarely want to upset things.

OTOH, if enough Republican electors saw the light in'16...

[onenote]

5. The two cases before the SCOTUS split on faithless elector laws

One case, which came to the Supreme Court from the Supreme Court of the State of Washington, upheld a Washington state law that imposed a civil penalty on a faithless elector.

The other case, which came to the Supreme Court from the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, struck down a Colorado law that nullified the vote of a faithless elector.

[Polybius]

7. The Colorado law was completely wrong

Maybe it's legal to fine a faithless elector for changing his/her vote, but to nullify it? Absurd.

[TreasonousBastard]

10. A-ha! So, the Court will attempt to settle the law over faithless electors. But, it appears...

at first glance that the states are sovereign over this matter so they will likely overrule the appeals court.

But, you just never know...

And how often does it happen that the Court decides between a state and a federal court?

[onenote]

19. So far this term, the court has decided over 60 cases, only 7 of which originated in state court.

[BComplex]

6. I didn't know about this alternative that helps states get rid of the electoral college:

I followed the links in the original article, and came upon this. Turns out 15 states and DC are already doing a run-around from the electoral college.

https://theconversation.com/what-could-replace-the-electoral-college-138769?utm_source=Yahoo&utm_medium=related-link&utm_campaign=related-link0&utm_content=article-138754

A ‘popular’ alternative?

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, currently passed in 15 U.S. states and D.C., is an agreement to award all of their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the nationwide popular vote. Created by computer scientist John Koza, this compact is designed to go into effect once enough participating states collectively represent a majority of electoral votes.

Some critics argue that it may be unconstitutional to determine states’ electoral votes based on votes from outside those states. But if it were to take effect, this compact would effectively apply plurality rule to U.S. presidential elections.

No longer would the candidate with the most popular votes be able to lose, though it still wouldn’t guarantee that the winner would avoid having more opposition than supporters.

[Polybius]

8. Depending on the ruling this month, it could make the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact DOA

If electors can do what they want, it could get interesting.

[BComplex]

9. And republican members of the court seem to thrive on chaos, more than anything else.

Therefore....

Well, gawd only knows how they might rule.

[StarfishSaver]

11. That case won't even come close to deciding the election

[UTUSN]

12. SCotUS decisions have theoretical besides actual consequences, no?

[StarfishSaver]

13. Everything has "theoretical consequences."

That doesn't mean that this case will decide the election. It won't.

[UTUSN]

15. O.K., this being an internet discussion board, not a scholarly publication,

my purpose in posting was to highlight a topic of some importance for whoever to make of what they will. It's not the only post on DU that could be cited for infelicitous wording, not to mention intentionality.

[StarfishSaver]

17. Highlighting a topic is one thing

Presenting misinformation, whether intentionally or not, is another.

[UTUSN]

18. And contentiousness is another.

Whether or not that you *do* see that you are posing an allegation ("presenting misinformation" ) that could be personally offensive, I'm not spending more anything on it.