Jump to content
Advertise With Us! Or Sign Up To Remove Ads!
Hello, readers! Please consider adding conspiracyoutpost.com to your adblock whitelist. Our ads support the development and upkeep of the site.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Talon

We definitely want to watch Ben Swann's Reality Check Today

Recommended Posts

 Cinnamon    19,827

 

Are there restrictions on who the Electors can vote for?

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states. Some states, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.

List of State Laws and Requirements Regarding the Electors

verified as of March 1, 2016

The Office of the Federal Register presents this material for informational purposes only, in response to numerous public inquiries. The list has no legal significance. It is based on information compiled by the Congressional Research Service. For more comprehensive information, refer to the U.S. Constitution and applicable Federal laws.

Legal Requirements or Pledges 
Electors in these States are bound by State Law or by pledges to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

ALABAMA – Party Pledge / State Law – § 17-19-2 
ALASKA – Party Pledge / State Law – § 15.30.040; 15.30.070 
CALIFORNIA – State Law – Elections Code § 6906 
COLORADO – State Law – § 1-4-304 
CONNECTICUT – State Law – § 9-175 
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA – DC Pledge / DC Law – § 1-1001.08(g) 
FLORIDA – Party Pledge / State Law – § 103.021(1) 
HAWAII – State Law – §§ 14-26 to 14-28 
MAINE – State Law – § 805 
MARYLAND – State Law – § 8-505 
MASSACHUSETTS – Party Pledge / State Law – Ch. 53, § 8, Supp. 
MICHIGAN – State Law – §168.47 (Violation cancels vote and Elector is replaced.) 
MISSISSIPPI – Party Pledge / State Law – §23-15-785(3) 
MONTANA – State Law – § 13-25-304 
NEBRASKA – State Law – § 32-714 
NEW MEXICO – State Law – § 1-15-5 to 1-15-9 (Violation is a fourth degree felony.) 
NORTH CAROLINA – State Law – § 163-212 (Violation cancels vote; elector is replaced and is subject to $500 fine.) 
OHIO – State Law – § 3505.40 
OKLAHOMA – State Pledge / State Law – 26, §§ 10-102; 10-109 (Violation of oath is a misdemeanor, carrying a fine of up to $1000.) 
OREGON – State Pledge / State Law – § 248.355 
SOUTH CAROLINA – State Pledge / State Law – § 7-19-80 (Replacement and criminal sanctions for violation.) 
VERMONT – State Law – title 17, § 2732 
VIRGINIA – State Law – § 24.2-202 
WASHINGTON – Party Pledge / State Law – §§ 29.71.020, 29.71.040, Supp. ($1000 fine.) 
WISCONSIN – State Law – § 7.75 
WYOMING – State Law – §§ 22-19-106; 22-19-108

<snip>

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 Talon    716
1 minute ago, Cinnamon said:

I can't find the whole video anywhere online. Need to see it. 

He says it will be available later today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 Cinnamon    19,827
Just now, Talon said:

He says it will be available later today.

Great, thanks. Man that shit made my blood pump. They're going to try something. I guess that's how to start a revolution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 Cinnamon    19,827

Here's what he's going to say:

http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/15/electoral-college-didnt-steal-election-trump/

The Idea Is to Prevent Democracy

The most powerful office in the land, the presidency, was even more insulated against the popular will. As Alexander Hamilton explained in “The Federalist” No. 68, the Electoral College was created for the express purpose of preventing voters from directly selecting the president:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

Hamilton goes on to describe how damaging it would be for the nation to have popular, direct votes for the presidency—damage any American who has lived through the past five elections should recognize:

The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments…

We see, then, that the plainest reading of the Twelfth Amendment is strongly supported by the clear intent of the Framers: the presidential electors have an absolute right to deliberate among themselves, setting aside external pressures, and to direct their electoral votes toward, as John Jay put it, “those men only who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue, and in whom the people perceive just grounds for confidence” (“The Federalist,” No. 64). Indeed, this is more than a right: it is a grave and difficult duty.

Each and every elector, then, must search deep within his or her conscience and determine who ought to be the next president of the United States: the commander-in-chief of the world’s greatest military, chief executor of the world’s greatest body of laws, and chief defender of the world’s greatest Constitution. In this decision, the electors are bound by nothing—not the instructions of their state legislatures, not the will of the democratic mob. To make the electors subservient to someone else’s will, mere automata executing a decision already made, would betray the Founding Fathers, undermining the scheme of the Constitution and the presidency itself.

It is true that a number of states purport to bind electors in various ways. Many states demand that electors pledge to cast their electoral votes for a particular candidate and threaten fines for electors who “break” that putative pledge. However, these laws do not alter how votes cast by electors are counted (the Twelfth Amendment makes this clear), nor can these laws be used after-the-fact to punish electors, because—as originalist legal scholars have shown—they are uniformly unconstitutional. No sanction against a conscientious elector has ever survived court review, and such sanctions remain on the books only because they are completely unenforced.

Nor is there any risk that a conscientious elector will accidentally cause Hillary Clinton to be elected because of a “spoiler effect.” Unlike direct democratic votes in our system, the Electoral College requires an absolute majority of 270 electoral votes to win. It doesn’t just give the presidency to whoever has the most votes. If no candidate receives 270, then the House of Representatives—controlled overwhelmingly by Republicans—chooses the president from among the top three vote-getters. Regardless of how each elector acts, the next president will be a Republican.

The Responsibility Is Theirs Alone

So the decision falls to the electors. They are free to choose the next president. They cannot escape this awesome responsibility by appealing to the will of the people, nor by hiding behind a legally meaningless pledge to some state or party. Just as Clinton did not earn the White House by winning the popular vote, Trump did not earn the White House just because 306 Republican electors were chosen on November 8. Those electors now face a difficult choice. I do not envy them.

Each elector who feels that way has both the right and the duty to vote for somebody else.

If each of the 306 Republican electors truly believes, in his or her heart of hearts, that Trump is the best man for the job, that he is the American with the greatest “abilities and virtue, in whom the people perceive just grounds for confidence,” who has all “the qualities adapted to the station” of the presidency… in that case, by all means, they should cast their votes accordingly, and Trump will become, on December 19, president-elect of the United States.

But if there is doubt; if, after deliberation with fellow electors, it seems clear that there are Americans better suited to serve as commander-in-chief, then each elector who feels that way has both the right and the duty, as officers of the Constitution of the United States, to vote for somebody else.

That is the system our Constitution demands. It is not a theft. It is not an error. It is by design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jump To Top
×