![]() In a pair of court rulings that have been appealed to the high court, the justices are being asked to decide whether states can require presidential electors to vote for that state’s popular-vote winner. The Supreme Court may soon weigh in on a key aspect of how the system works. Before his election, Trump called the current system a “disaster,” but afterwards, he said that “the Electoral College is far better for the U.S.A.” Changing to direct election of the president could be accomplished through a constitutional amendment or, less permanently, a method such as the National Popular Vote Compact, an agreement among states to award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. Most of the Democratic presidential candidates want to abolish the Electoral College to ensure the person with the most votes always wins. The discussion resonates even more this year, since Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016 despite losing the popular vote by nearly 3 million. … Electors are not free agents they are to vote for the candidate whom the State’s voters have chosen.”Įvery presidential election brings renewed debate about the Electoral College. UPDATE: On July 6, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled, “A State may enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee-and the state voters’ choice-for President. Attend the Brennan Legacy Awards Dinner. ![]() ![]() Advance Constitutional Change Show / hide.National Task Force on Democracy Reform & the Rule of Law.Government Targeting of Minority Communities Show / hide.Campaign Finance in the Courts Show / hide.Gerrymandering & Fair Representation Show / hide.Ensure Every American Can Vote Show / hide.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |