BREAKING: Supreme Court rules states can penalize faithless electors

Axios Alert:

Supreme Court rules states can penalize faithless electors
Why it matters: The 2016 presidential election saw 10 electors vote for someone other than their state’s chosen candidate — highlighting how faithless electors could have the potential to swing an election.

This entry was posted in 2020 Goat Rodeo. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to BREAKING: Supreme Court rules states can penalize faithless electors

  1. We can penalize them,but can we reverse their votes? if not, this is meaningless.

    Saw this this weekend:

    “If we’re getting rid of monuments to the glory of owning slaves, why not the Electoral College?”

    Liked by 3 people

    • tengrain says:

      BDR –

      I’m totally in favor of that! We should totally boost that message.



      Liked by 1 person

    • Infidel753 says:

      The idea is that sufficiently severe penalties would deter them from misvoting in the first place.


    • MDavis says:

      If they are required to vote their state’s chosen candidate then what’s the point of having electors in the first place?


      • Because of the antiquated pro-slavery parts of our Constitution.

        Liked by 1 person

      • w3ski4me says:

        There is no point except to give slave states more voting power than they deserved. We would be much better off to go to a National Vote only.
        My thoughts anyway,


      • MDavis says:

        Either you guys are missing my point or there is some basic feature of the Electoral College that I’m missing.
        My understanding – the Electoral College is a layer of stuff between the voters and the results of the election, meant to give the slave states an edge because, allegedly, those slave states have to have extra votes because they are taking care of extra people – you know, because no way will they give those “extra people” the vote. (They are still fighting it.)
        But the electors – those are the people that officially cast the electoral college vote. I thought the whole reason to have the elector frosting on the extra level between voters and results was to allow for a conscience vote, a vote that rejects a result that is just too batshit crazy or over the top or, I
        don’t know, too Butteremails… In other words, the electors are charged with protecting the country from a truly bad or stupid vote.
        So if faithless* electors are to be penalized for taking the action that they were inserted into the system to do – what’s the point of keeping them at all?
        Or am I misunderstanding the system?


      • julesmomcat says:

        Exactly! We need a national referendum, or a Constitutional Amendment, to abolish the Electoral College. If electors can negate the popular vote, they completely undermine the concept of democracy. Why bother voting, when some jerk elector overrides your vote?


      • MDavis says:

        I thought the electoral college already skews the popular vote. The electors were supposed to be a sort of breathing sanity clause. If one goes, the other should go with it.
        Just my opinion.
        Oh, here we go. A quote (after stating that number of electoral votes are based on reps and senators)

        For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people. However, Wyoming has three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 estimates).

        And the site that describes this is fairvote (dot) org (page) population_vs_electoral_votes


  2. roket says:

    Faithless electors. Bet they take their wedding vows just as seriously.


  3. w3ski4me says:

    Kinda like closing the barn door after the horses ran off. Not of any real use and I can only imagine the “penalty”. Not even a slap on the wrist much less the necessary execution.
    Those electors need some serious scrutiny for outside influences.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.