Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Constitution (Amendment 12), does not prevent them from v****g differently. In history, "faithless e*****rs" have v**ed 152 times against the popular state v**e choice. Most recently is Micheal Baca, who was supposed to v**e for k**lary but crossed out her name and wrote in Kasich which prompted the state to nullify his v**e and he sued. What the ruling did was uphold the right of the "faithless e*****r" and prevent their v**e from being nullified by the state.

It is called "Hamilton E*****rs." The idea was to persuade enough members of the e*******l college — the body of 538 members who v**e for president — to instead cast b****ts for Republicans such as former Ohio governor John Kasich, depriving Trump of just enough e*******l v**es required to become president.

Now, the federal appeals court has upheld the right of “faithless e*****rs” to v**e with their conscience — a ruling that throws into question states’ winner-take-all e******n systems that bind e*****rs to v**e for the state’s popular v**e winner.

Sixteen (16) states, including Colorado, have passed laws that would award all of their e*******l v**es to the winner of the national popular v**e not who won the state— a nationwide initiative that would virtually wipe out the need for an e*******l college if enough states join.

JediKnight

The EC should have been abolished years ago in my opinion. What's the point of the individual v**e if EC can go against the will of the people?

JimMe

nwtk2007... Not only that, but E*****rates for both Trump and Clinton cast their v**es for different people... And in the past, several E*****rates have cast v**es instead of who they were suppose to... But this doesn't stop the ridiculous thinking of these "Educated Representatives"...

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

With just the popular v**e, and no EC, the v**es from the middle of our country would never count. Take a look at the map....it is clear upon 1st glance, the nation v**ed Republican....yet popular v**e, due to a few states (and I will not go into who v**ed) Democrats won the popular v**e. The EC allows all v**es to count.

JediKnight

I am not sure of how you arrive at "without the EC the v**es from the middle of the country would never count." Isn't the "popular v**e" a count of all those who v**ed? Why don't they count? Also, what is the point of the EC when we're supposedly under the "one person = one v**e" concept?

Idaho Lassie

Whenever I hear liberals complain about the e*******l college and how their v**e weighs in slightly differently... I ask them if they partake in their own party’s primary... and how they feel about their v**e being worth 1/10,000th of one of their super peeps’s v**es??? It’s a blatant insult to their intelligence. Whenever they start raising a fuss saying this doesn’t seem fair (you’re damn right it’s not fair), they then have someone come out and elite-splain it to them. Now what did we talk about last time... the citizens don’t know these candidates up close and personal. They see them on tv and think... he seems nice I’ll v**e for him. But we work with these people, side by side. We really know these people. We might know that this guy is actually not that nice when the cameras are off. And that’s what superdelegates do... help us dodge a bullet. Yep, kindergarten voice and all.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

So if the e*****r v**ed for a candidate who didn't win the popular v**e, the state could just cancel the v**e and have one less e*******l college v**e? Interesting. Didn't know that.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

So, in those states you mention like Colorado, that law would mean that in 2016 all of their e*******l v**es would have gone to Hillary, even if T***p w*n?

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

I believe that was the litigant's basis for this particular lawsuit.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

And, presumably, vice-versa...or at least, 'could' have as opposed to "would have." At least, that's the way I read the decision, not sure.

This might prove to be a Pandora's Box.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

What an amazing opportunity for trouble.

Tug484

Missed it.
Thought sure it would be 9th circuit.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Indeed.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

I was thinking the same thing. Too much meddling with this system.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Yep!