Judge orders Colorado electors to vote for Hillary

[christiefan915]

Faithless electors want to break the law.

"Colorado's nine electors must vote for Hillary Clinton because she won the state's popular vote, a judge ruled Tuesday, effectively stopping the state's electors from joining a longshot effort to unite with Republicans behind a compromise presidential candidate other than Donald Trump.

Denver Judge Elizabeth Starrs also ruled that any electors who fail to do so can immediately be replaced when the Electoral College convenes Dec. 19. She responded to a request from Colorado's secretary of state, who was seeking a way to prevent electors from diverging from the winner of the state's popular vote.

Electors Polly Baca and Robert Nemanich had sued to overturn a state law requiring them to vote for Clinton, but a federal judge refused to do so Monday."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ote-for-hillary-clinton/ar-AAlwh6a?li=BBnbfcL

 

[Airstrip One]

I don't know if WA has done anything to prevent it, but, one of my twelve Electors is an outspoken anti-Hillary type, and seems to want to caste his vote for some symbolic candidate (perhaps Bernmaster Sandy?).

 

[Ralph]

Faithless electors want to break the law.

"Colorado's nine electors must vote for Hillary Clinton because she won the state's popular vote, a judge ruled Tuesday, effectively stopping the state's electors from joining a longshot effort to unite with Republicans behind a compromise presidential candidate other than Donald Trump.

Denver Judge Elizabeth Starrs also ruled that any electors who fail to do so can immediately be replaced when the Electoral College convenes Dec. 19. She responded to a request from Colorado's secretary of state, who was seeking a way to prevent electors from diverging from the winner of the state's popular vote.

Electors Polly Baca and Robert Nemanich had sued to overturn a state law requiring them to vote for Clinton, but a federal judge refused to do so Monday."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ote-for-hillary-clinton/ar-AAlwh6a?li=BBnbfcL

Yes...its called the Constitutional Rule of Law. When a state freely chooses a candidate through casting a ballot....the candidate with the majority of the Votes win the Electoral Votes for president.. unless there is a divided EC distribution v ratified by the people of that state...such as in the states of Maine or Nebraska...that decided to use the Congressional District Method...where there could be split votes.

Did these radical communist anarchists think they could convince all 232 Clinton EC voters to change their votes along with 38 Trump EC voters? Talk about being out of touch with reality.

Again.....Sour Grapes have resulted in a great many cases of the Blue Colic.

 

[NOVA]

Faithless electors want to break the law.

"Colorado's nine electors must vote for Hillary Clinton because she won the state's popular vote, a judge ruled Tuesday, effectively stopping the state's electors from joining a longshot effort to unite with Republicans behind a compromise presidential candidate other than Donald Trump.

Denver Judge Elizabeth Starrs also ruled that any electors who fail to do so can immediately be replaced when the Electoral College convenes Dec. 19. She responded to a request from Colorado's secretary of state, who was seeking a way to prevent electors from diverging from the winner of the state's popular vote.

Electors Polly Baca and Robert Nemanich had sued to overturn a state law requiring them to vote for Clinton, but a federal judge refused to do so Monday."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ote-for-hillary-clinton/ar-AAlwh6a?li=BBnbfcL

This "order" is unconstitutional......

U.S. Supreme Court:
The constitutionality of state pledge laws was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1952 in Ray v. Blair in a 5–2 vote. The court ruled states have the right to require electors to pledge to vote for the candidate whom their party supports, and the right to remove potential electors who refuse to pledge prior to the election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

The electors MUST pledge to vote as directed by the party...but they can't be forced to. They can be replaced PRIOR to the election, but not after the fact.

They can be FINED for not voting as they pledged , up to, I believe, $1000.....but they can always vote however they like....

 

[Lightbringer]

Faithless electors want to break the law.

"Colorado's nine electors must vote for Hillary Clinton because she won the state's popular vote, a judge ruled Tuesday, effectively stopping the state's electors from joining a longshot effort to unite with Republicans behind a compromise presidential candidate other than Donald Trump.

Denver Judge Elizabeth Starrs also ruled that any electors who fail to do so can immediately be replaced when the Electoral College convenes Dec. 19. She responded to a request from Colorado's secretary of state, who was seeking a way to prevent electors from diverging from the winner of the state's popular vote.

Electors Polly Baca and Robert Nemanich had sued to overturn a state law requiring them to vote for Clinton, but a federal judge refused to do so Monday."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ote-for-hillary-clinton/ar-AAlwh6a?li=BBnbfcL

You lost prog, get over it.

 

[WillReadmore]

I don't know if WA has done anything to prevent it, but, one of my twelve Electors is an outspoken anti-Hillary type, and seems to want to caste his vote for some symbolic candidate (perhaps Bernmaster Sandy?).

I'm in Seattle - good to see you here!

Interestingly, the electoral college counts ballots in each state by their state process. The state tabulation is then certified and sent to the federal level to be counted with the rest of the states.

In WA, there really is no way for the ballot of a renegade elector to get past the state level. Electors have signed contracts with their parties stating limits on how they cast their ballot. If they go rogue, the party that chose them would simply have them replaced by one of the several alternates.

The federal courts have ruled that states have significant latitude in their state process for counting electors.

I really don't believe this "faithless elector" thing could possibly go anywhere - certainly not in WA.

 

[tsuke]

there looks like there is a lot of controversy in the electoral college... till you realize its all coming from democrats.

 

[WillReadmore]

This "order" is unconstitutional......

U.S. Supreme Court:
The constitutionality of state pledge laws was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1952 in Ray v. Blair in a 5–2 vote. The court ruled states have the right to require electors to pledge to vote for the candidate whom their party supports, and the right to remove potential electors who refuse to pledge prior to the election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

The electors MUST pledge to vote as directed by the party...but they can't be forced to. They can be replaced PRIOR to the election, but not after the fact.

They can be FINED for not voting as they pledged , up to, I believe, $1000.....but they can always vote however they like....

That sounds possible, but states have more latitude than you are assuming.

You're right that nobody can "force" an elector to vote in a particular way, but electors can be replaced before the electoral ballot results are reported to the federal level.

That is, there is nothing to require a state to report an electoral result that includes the act of a "faithless" elector.