In the 2016 Presidential Election, the electoral vote was expected to be 306 for Donald J. Trump and 232 for Hilary Clinton. However, 10 electors “went rouge”, voting for canidates other than the one their partiy selected. A swing by that number of electors would have been enough to change the outcomes in five of the previous 58 presidential election, raising concerns for many Americans because it reveals the shortcomings of the electoral system in representing the general will. As a result, a petition was introduced to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to decide whether “faithless electors” were free to disregard pledges they made to vote for their own parties’ candidates. The petion also asked the courts to come to a decision quickly because waiting until the next election cycle would be too controversial for the courts, especially during a time when politics are especially polarized. The main question the Court would decide upon is when or not the constitution permits restrictions on who electors can vote for, and wether or not states are allowed to interfere once voting begins, tby removing an elector, directing the other electors to disregard the removed elector’s vote or by appointing a new elector to cast a replacement vote.”
Questions:
1) What are the dissenting and concurring opinions in this case?
2) Why would it be problematic for the Supreme Court to make a ruling on this case during a presidential election? (Political thicket)
3) Does the constitustion favor elector independence? Why or why not?
3. The existence of the Electoral College is evidence that the Constitution favors elector independence. A key reason that the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College is that they didn't trust the people to make decisions on their own and believed that the president should be selected by "enlightened statesmen." In conjunction with the non-existence of political parties when the Constitution was written, this belief reveals that the Founding Fathers assumed that electors would vote according to their individual discretion. In fact, the Constitution doesn't even specify a notion of "pledging" to support a particular candidate.
ReplyDelete3. I definitely think the Constitution favors elector independence. The goal of the founding fathers was to create a government that was representative of the people's will to a certain extent. The House was the only part of the government that had a direct vote (Senators were originally indirectly elected). It's evident that the founding fathers favored indirect representation. This is why we have the electoral college and the electors. Hamilton didn't want to give the average citizen too much power because he claimed they would not be able to make good enough decisions. For these reasons, it's clear that the constitution favors elector independence.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Constitution does favor elector independence. The founding fathers intended to give people a say in government, but definitely not as much as we might want today for example. When looking at history, it is important to consider the fact that the constitution was written when slaves were bought and sold, as were women. The 3/5th compromise kind of goes to show that founding fathers wanted there to be representation, but not enough to give the average citizen too much power.
ReplyDelete3. The Constitution's purpose is to protect civil liberties and rights in order to ensure that our Democracy would thrive and not be overruled due to a lack of participates. This means that elector independence would definitely be favored in the constitution because of its purpose. It was also the Founding Fathers objective to ensure that citizens had protected rights but to a certain extent because they wouldn't want citizens to overpower the government. This and because of indirectly voting is also the reason why the electoral college overthrows the popular vote.
ReplyDelete3. The Constitution favors elector independence as the framers themselves feared the tyranny of the majority and did not fully trust average citizens to make the right decisions when it came to voting. This is why the House of Representatives was originally the only part of government where the public could vote directly for their representatives. Meanwhile in the Senate, senators were made up of the wealthy and educated elite chosen by state legislatures. So, it is clear that the framers structured the government so that there was a buffer between the direct opinion of the public and the decisions that were actually made. They made the Constitution set up the government in this way to take away some of the general public's power and give educated electors more independence when deciding on issues and voting.
ReplyDelete3. The framers designed our government to prevent a tyranny of the majority, while still giving citizens power to influence legislation and leaders. Power is divided between federal, state and local governments. The three branches of power in the federal government check each other to make sure one branch is not abusing their power. Therefore, it is safe to say that the constitution favors an elector independence as the framers did not want to give the people too much power to make decisions. They have some say because it is a winner take all system in all states except for Maine and Nebraska, meaning that the electoral vote has to reflect the popular vote.
ReplyDelete2. It would be very problematic and controversial if the supreme court made a decision like limiting the power of electors or limiting some of the power they have because it can end up being seen as a political move by one side of the spectrum trying to disadvantage the other. And, when it comes down to it, whoever fixing the system disadvantages, which will probably be the Republicans, will spark outrage from this group. This discourages the supreme court from making such a controversial decision during an election cycle. It will be hard for the supreme court to find a good time to make a decision on this issue but it is very important that they do to how are future elections will work.
ReplyDelete#3 I believe that the Framers did intend for the independence of the electors. Similar to how the President nominates a judge who shares very similar views but will ultimately remain independent, the Framers might have expected electors to be in a similar non-binding relationship with state legislatures. This would fall very close in line with their desire to isolate power from the tyranny of the majority, not to mention that they could have simply decided that state legislatures would directly elect the president if that was what they wanted. At the same time, one could make the case that the Founders would be indifferent if states exercised more control over their electors based on the fact that states are already empowered to regulate their elections, as well as the fact that Article II does not specify how state legislatures should select their electors.
ReplyDelete2. It would be an issue for the supreme court to take a stance because the supreme court is not supposed to be involved in politics. By picking a side the supreme court would seem like they are taking a partisan stance. This would delegitimize the supreme court for many.
ReplyDeleteThe electoral college is the real reason why democracy does not work. Obviously there are some benefits to it, but other than the economic policies, there is nothing beneficial about it. We do not vote for our president, and we do not vote for anyone. The whole process is absurd.
ReplyDelete