'Supreme Court rules that states can penalize so-called "faithless electors"'

ProfessorDetective · Post by **ProfessorDetective** » Mon Jul 06, 2020 8:31 pm

Hopefully, this'll keep the elections more honest. Hopefully.

https://twitter.com/i/events/1280146844945838080

Fuzzy Necromancer · Post by **Fuzzy Necromancer** » Mon Jul 06, 2020 8:32 pm

Given that just about every other convention of representational democracy has gone out the window, this was better sorted out now than later.

BridgeConsoleMasher · Post by **BridgeConsoleMasher** » Mon Jul 06, 2020 8:33 pm

Has it ever been a problem. I thought like 99% of them vote consistently.

Fuzzy Necromancer · Post by **Fuzzy Necromancer** » Mon Jul 06, 2020 8:33 pm

Dude have you seen the past four years? Anything that could be a problem will.

BridgeConsoleMasher · Mon Jul 06, 2020 10:21 pm

Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 8:33 pm Dude have you seen the past four years? Anything that could be a problem will.

I know that slippery slope. It's the nephew of the butterfly effect.

Post by **TGLS** » Mon Jul 06, 2020 10:58 pm

Well, 2016 was the most faithless electors in a while, mostly anti-Clinton but some anti-Trump.

ProfessorDetective · Post by **ProfessorDetective** » Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:08 pm

Okay, we MAY have jumped the gun on this being a major victory:
youtu.be/COmW6r23zas

Darth Wedgius · Post by **Darth Wedgius** » Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:39 pm

That's good. I understand that people will sometimes find people they cannot in good conscience vote for, but IMO that doesn't give them the right to substitute their decision for that of the electorate. They either need to hold their nose and do the will of the people or find someone who can.

Madner Kami · Post by **Madner Kami** » Sat Jul 18, 2020 6:52 pm

Darth Wedgius wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:39 pm That's good. I understand that people will sometimes find people they cannot in good conscience vote for, but IMO that doesn't give them the right to substitute their decision for that of the electorate. They either need to hold their nose and do the will of the people or find someone who can.

Are these electors intended as mere tools from an age where long range communication was a difficult and time-consuming thing or are they put in place to act as elected officials? If the former, then there's no need for them in the first place anymore and they can be removed and, indeed, should be. If the later, then they have the responsibility to act against the stated interest of their constituence in order to act in the interest of their constituence and need the freedom to do so.

King Green · Post by **King Green** » Sat Jul 18, 2020 7:08 pm

Is this universe suddenly becoming a "Christian-Nation" parody?

I can TOLERATE Fundamentalists but this, this can Literally and Conceptually kill every old-style religion that started Hedonistic.

*Sfdebris.net

'Supreme Court rules that states can penalize so-called "faithless electors"'

'Supreme Court rules that states can penalize so-called "faithless electors"'

Re: 'Supreme Court rules that states can penalize so-called "faithless electors"'

Re: 'Supreme Court rules that states can penalize so-called "faithless electors"'

Re: 'Supreme Court rules that states can penalize so-called "faithless electors"'

Re: 'Supreme Court rules that states can penalize so-called "faithless electors"'

Re: 'Supreme Court rules that states can penalize so-called "faithless electors"'

Re: 'Supreme Court rules that states can penalize so-called "faithless electors"'

Re: 'Supreme Court rules that states can penalize so-called "faithless electors"'

Re: 'Supreme Court rules that states can penalize so-called "faithless electors"'

Re: 'Supreme Court rules that states can penalize so-called "faithless electors"'