Are Electors Free Agents? Supreme Court to Hear Electoral College Case

[Flash]

The issue in two cases the court agreed on Jan. 17 to hear — one from Washington state and one from Colorado — is whether individual members of the electoral college are free to vote for whomever they please, or whether states may pass laws requiring them to cast votes for the candidate to whom they pledged their votes prior to the election. Such laws exist in 29 states and the District, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures; they conform to the widespread public expectation, developed over centuries of common practice, that each state’s electoral votes will go to the winner of its popular vote — except for Maine and Nebraska, which award some by congressional district.

However, the notion of electors as free agents also has a credible historical foundation, in the framers’ original concept that electors be “capable of analyzing the qualities” of a good president, as Alexander Hamilton put it. Since 1796, 167 electors have voted, or attempted to vote, for candidates not backed by the voters of their states — 10 of them in 2016. Congress has generally accepted the votes of “faithless electors,” in part because there have never been enough of them to change the outcome. In light of today’s volatile polarization, and the likelihood of a close electoral vote in 2020, that particular constitutional loose end can no longer be left hanging.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...455_story.html

[Celticguy]

There are valid reasons for leaving it as free agents. The obvious being when a candidate dies between november and when the EC votes. Or other information of a serioys nature comes to light. Slippery slope to be sure.

[CFM]

The issue in two cases the court agreed on Jan. 17 to hear — one from Washington state and one from Colorado — is whether individual members of the electoral college are free to vote for whomever they please, or whether states may pass laws requiring them to cast votes for the candidate to whom they pledged their votes prior to the election. Such laws exist in 29 states and the District, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures; they conform to the widespread public expectation, developed over centuries of common practice, that each state’s electoral votes will go to the winner of its popular vote — except for Maine and Nebraska, which award some by congressional district.

However, the notion of electors as free agents also has a credible historical foundation, in the framers’ original concept that electors be “capable of analyzing the qualities” of a good president, as Alexander Hamilton put it. Since 1796, 167 electors have voted, or attempted to vote, for candidates not backed by the voters of their states — 10 of them in 2016. Congress has generally accepted the votes of “faithless electors,” in part because there have never been enough of them to change the outcome. In light of today’s volatile polarization, and the likelihood of a close electoral vote in 2020, that particular constitutional loose end can no longer be left hanging.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...455_story.html

It's not a loose end. The Constitution, when it comes to electors, says very little and much of it is procedural.

II, 1, 2 gives a formula on how to determine the number of electors for each State then restricts those holding seats in Congress or other hired/appointed positions from being electors. The latter is clearly due to the potential conflict of interest it could cause.

II, 1, 3 deals with the process of electors voting, who will count, and how many it takes to win.

Not a word by the founders on how a State should determine which candidate gets their electors or the process by which someone can qualify as an elector (other than the conflict of interest mentioned earlier). What the founders did it set the outline and let each State determine on behalf of itself how it will do things.

As for Nebraska and Maine, their system isn't really that much different than the winner take all of the other 48 and DC. They simply break it down on a more local level. It's still winner take all within the congressional districts.

[Flash]

It's not a loose end. The Constitution, when it comes to electors, says very little and much of it is procedural.

II, 1, 2 gives a formula on how to determine the number of electors for each State then restricts those holding seats in Congress or other hired/appointed positions from being electors. The latter is clearly due to the potential conflict of interest it could cause.

II, 1, 3 deals with the process of electors voting, who will count, and how many it takes to win.

Not a word by the founders on how a State should determine which candidate gets their electors or the process by which someone can qualify as an elector (other than the conflict of interest mentioned earlier). What the founders did it set the outline and let each State determine on behalf of itself how it will do things.

As for Nebraska and Maine, their system isn't really that much different than the winner take all of the other 48 and DC. They simply break it down on a more local level. It's still winner take all within the congressional districts.

Do you believe each state should have the power to determine whether its electors are free to vote how they choose are can be required (with punishment) to vote the way they are pledged?

[Flash]

There are valid reasons for leaving it as free agents. The obvious being when a candidate dies between november and when the EC votes. Or other information of a serioys nature comes to light. Slippery slope to be sure.

You think state laws regulating electors should be struck down?

[CFM]

Do you believe each state should have the power to determine whether its electors are free to vote how they choose are can be required (with punishment) to vote the way they are pledged?

That's the way it is now. 32 States and DC have electors that are required to vote the way the popular vote goes. The penalties, if any, vary from State to State.

What I don't believe is that the Constitution gives the federal government the ability to make that determination on behalf of the States. When the Constitution was written, the founders didn't intend to use popular vote at all to pick the President. That is something States chose to do as a way of determining how its electors voted. There is an amendment process.

[Celticguy]

You think state laws regulating electors should be struck down?

States are responsible for how they handle their electors absolutely and i dont have an issue with faithless ones with the caveat that if one presents himself fraudlently with the intention of being faithless. Thats the slippery slope we see playing out in Congress and the judiciary. People seem quite confortable with deceit and fraud these days.