Only for states that force that outcome. There is nothing that stops states with winner take all laws from enacting popular vote laws, and based on this and previous rulings, those laws would likely stand.
I wondered that as well. but this ruling only applies to individual electors voting against the will of the people as dictated by the law of that state.
This does not negate a state making a law on how their electoral votes are attributed.
No, in fact, it actually affirms that states can enforce the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact as the law currently stands. This ruling is not a guarantee that electors must follow the popular vote of their state, rather that they must follow state law on how to vote. If state law says, ignore the vote of our state and follow the national popular vote, the electors must do so and can be replaced if they fail to do so.
It seems a pretty hard sell to claim that any state can make rules that forfeit the majority vote of their own citizens in favor of the majority vote of another state(s), without that rule being an unconstitutional violation of the 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments.
Just the legal mess of vote fraud or ballot lawsuits filed under one state’s rules affecting other additional states’ outcomes would be a nightmare.
Exactly, people put too much faith into our bureaucrats that they will do the right thing and do right by their electorate. But they serve themselves and the party first, middle and last
But if you vote in that state, your vote still counts for something. If they just give their electoral votes to whomever wins California and New York, your vote in those states means nothing.
In fact, the combined votes of everyone in all the states <50% of the pooled popular vote are essentially meaningless, because they can be turned on decisions made by the large populations and counting rules of the largest states containing >50% of the total population.
That ends the ridiculous 17 state winner take all assault on the electoral college?
no
It could. The precedent is now set that an elector has to choose the majority winner in that state.
disagree. the precedent is that the elector must follow the rules of that state.
Just win the popular vote and make them all trump votes. God that would kill me. We weren't far off with Hildawg.
I can see that. But would a state deciding based on national vote be constitutional?
I think what it really set is that they have to abide by the rules their state imposed on the elector.
Most states just make them vote according to their state's popular vote, but not all of them do.
Yes, and the States can change their laws which the electors would have to follow
Only for states that force that outcome. There is nothing that stops states with winner take all laws from enacting popular vote laws, and based on this and previous rulings, those laws would likely stand.
National popular vote laws would be found unconstitutional, no?
Exactly! That's the key here
from where is the precedent set?
This decision sets the precedent that electors have to follow the Constitution, no?
I wondered that as well. but this ruling only applies to individual electors voting against the will of the people as dictated by the law of that state.
This does not negate a state making a law on how their electoral votes are attributed.
And why it is so important every vote for Trump get tallied.
Precisely
No, in fact, it actually affirms that states can enforce the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact as the law currently stands. This ruling is not a guarantee that electors must follow the popular vote of their state, rather that they must follow state law on how to vote. If state law says, ignore the vote of our state and follow the national popular vote, the electors must do so and can be replaced if they fail to do so.
Precisely. Thank you.
No. Nothing to do with that.
This is regarding Colorado who voted for hilary and had the actual electorates voting for someone else
It seems a pretty hard sell to claim that any state can make rules that forfeit the majority vote of their own citizens in favor of the majority vote of another state(s), without that rule being an unconstitutional violation of the 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments.
Just the legal mess of vote fraud or ballot lawsuits filed under one state’s rules affecting other additional states’ outcomes would be a nightmare.
Welcome to Weimerica where the authority is made up and the constitution doesn't matter
Not a hard sell.
Democrats: do you want your vote to not matter, and have other people decide for you? If you disagree you're a racist bigot!
Libtards in chorus: we agree, we agree!!
I meant to (we would hope) the Supreme Court, but your scenario still kinda applies!
Exactly, people put too much faith into our bureaucrats that they will do the right thing and do right by their electorate. But they serve themselves and the party first, middle and last
But if you vote in that state, your vote still counts for something. If they just give their electoral votes to whomever wins California and New York, your vote in those states means nothing.
In fact, the combined votes of everyone in all the states <50% of the pooled popular vote are essentially meaningless, because they can be turned on decisions made by the large populations and counting rules of the largest states containing >50% of the total population.