Did you know that the United States Supreme Court is going to rule on the viability of our electoral system?

Well, that is exactly what is going to happen.  And the ruling will come down before this year’s presidential election.

From Bronson Stocking’s article at

On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that would decide whether electoral college electors must vote for the winner of their state’s popular vote. Half the states currently have laws requiring electors to vote for the candidate who wins the popular vote in their state. 

Electors who do not vote in accordance to the winner of their state’s popular vote are known as “faithless electors.”

While states can choose their own electors and require them to pledge certain loyalties, once the electors form the electoral college they are no longer serving a state function but a federal one.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Justice Gonzalez’s dissent, ruling that electors can vote for any legitimate candidate they choose. 

In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state laws requiring electors to abide by the popular vote of the state did not violate the Constitution, but the high court never ruled whether the states can enforce those pledges after the fact.

The case goes before the court this spring and a decision is expected by the end of June. 

It would be hard to overstate the importance of this supreme court case.

For starters, while it keeps the electoral system intact, it eliminates any need for an electoral college.  What is the point of individual electors meeting to take a vote, when their vote has already been irrevocably established by their states’ popular vote?  It’s a nice vacation for political donors, I suppose, but would serve no other purpose.

Then we have the two states (so far), Maine and Nevada, which have decided to apportion their electors based on how many votes each candidate receives.  In these states, if candidate A gets two thirds of the state vote – a huge win – that candidate can be handed just two thirds of the electors, with the other third going to Candidate B, who was soundly rejected by the state’s voters.

And finally – most importantly if you ask me – we have 15 states (and the District of Columbia), which have signed a compact which says that, once they comprise an electoral majority, they commit to giving all their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote – thus making the decision of their states’ voters 100% irrelevant.

Well, they have.  The states are:  California, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

Did you know that so many states had agreed to this end-around of the electoral system?

Did you know that these states comprise 196 electoral votes – about 73% of what is needed for an electoral majority?

Do you understand that, if enough states sign onto this agreement to comprise an electoral majority, it would render the federal, constitutional electoral system non-existent – since it would insure that, no matter which states votes for which candidate, the national popular vote winner would have a majority of electoral votes and therefore be the winner?

Well, those are the facts.

Any doubt about how important this Supreme Court case is?

Can you think of any pending case that is more important?  I know I can’t.

Be assured I will be monitoring its progress and periodically reporting on where it stands.

1 Comment

  • Good Lord!

    Would 10 million dollars buy the vote of a faithless elector?

    Consider it a “Research Grant”.

    Tell Mikey Bloomberg the cancel is half billion dollar ad campaign.

    Tell Georgie Soros to get his check book out if he wants to buy This election.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *