Anyone in SWING STATES? Are you registered to vote?

[opinterph]

In 1952, … The Court did not rule whether pledges were enforceable. [Link]

From the opinion in Chiafalo et al v. Washington:

Page 7

We now affirm the Washington Supreme Court’s judgment that a State may enforce its pledge law against an elector.

Page 9

The Constitution’s text and the Nation’s history both support allowing a State to enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee—and the state voters’ choice—for President.

 

[TX-Beau]

From the opinion in Chiafalo et al v. Washington:

Page 7



Page 9

Cherry pick all you want, they DID NOT instruct that electors do one thing or another.

The fact remains that the SC just said states may make a law they did not require compliance with any of them. Washington makes a law, an elector flouts it, what is the recourse? Litigation. Washington - whose SC court that quote refers to, isn't the Nine.

 

[spooger]

...clip...Anyway it's not necessarily a bad thing to keep the system from going full on majority rule, the majority may not always be yours, and it can and has done evil things...

See post #4 : "The reason the EC exists is to prevent rule by tyrany (sic) of the majority"

 

[cityboy-stl]

See post #4 : "The reason the EC exists is to prevent rule by tyrany (sic) of the majority"

Which is exactly what it has created.

 

[opinterph]

The fact remains that the SC just said states may make a law they did not require compliance with any of them. Washington makes a law, an elector flouts it, what is the recourse? Litigation. Washington - whose SC court that quote refers to, isn't the Nine.

Once again, I’m not sure I understand your remarks. In the case of Washington, that state's current law stipulates that the secretary of state may not accept and may not count either an elector’s presidential or vice presidential ballot if the elector has not marked both ballots or has marked a ballot in violation of the elector’s pledge. If an elector marks a ballot in violation of the elector’s pledge, that elector is determined to have vacated the office of elector and is replaced with a substitute elector who is also subject to the same requirement to honor his/her pledge. The recourse for a faithless elector is mandated as part of the law itself.

[Revised Code of Washington 29A.56.090]

Chiafalo v. Washington (SCOTUS blog)

Holding: A state may enforce an elector’s pledge to support their party’s nominee – and the state voters’ choice – for president in the Electoral College.

 

[TX-Beau]

See post #4 : "The reason the EC exists is to prevent rule by tyrany (sic) of the majority"

No, the EC exists because White people commiting the monstrous and obscene crime of slavery were terrified the Yankees were going to vote it away.

 

[TX-Beau]

Once again, I’m not sure I understand your remarks. In the case of Washington, that state's current law stipulates that the secretary of state may not accept and may not count either an elector’s presidential or vice presidential ballot if the elector has not marked both ballots or has marked a ballot in violation of the elector’s pledge. If an elector marks a ballot in violation of the elector’s pledge, that elector is determined to have vacated the office of elector and is replaced with a substitute elector who is also subject to the same requirement to honor his/her pledge. The recourse for a faithless elector is mandated as part of the law itself.

[Revised Code of Washington 29A.56.090]

I'm nor sure I understand your confusion. This is irrelevant to the argument. The SC could have removed any right to appeal state law, they did not. Pointedly, though it does seem some of them wanted to. End of story.

 

[TX-Beau]

Which is exactly what it has created.

It's always been a flawed system, considering they why of it, that's not surprising.