Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Senior Contributor

That could be big.

A federal appeals court ruled late Tuesday that presidential electors who cast the actual ballots for president and vice president are free to vote as they wish and cannot be required to follow the results of the popular vote in their states.

6 Replies

Re: That could be big.

50/50 as to whether that* is The End of the Republic or The End of the Electoral College.

*assumes that it would be sustained by the SCOTUS.  I am certain that's what The Founders Originally Intended, we've just been doing it all wrong for 230 years.

Gotta say, those Federalist Society cathlo-fascists aren't messing around.

Canuck's got to be busting a gut.


Re: That could be big.

a previously unknown Federalist Paper indicates that's what Madison and Hamilton really thought?


Re: That could be big.

Upon reflection, I'm mildly confident that Roberts would go thumbs down on that, preferring to play the long game, and protecting his institution.

Does need to be decided before the election.

Once again, I'm waiting for Canuck to pick himself up off the floor and comment.

Veteran Advisor

Re: That could be big.


Pretty sure there was actually a time when "the public" did not even vote for the President.  Later, when the Presidential candidates were first included on the public ballots, those still were generally not tallied for public consumption.  While we do prefer to cast our ballots in the Presidential elections, and we do prefer to have those votes counted and tallied, those votes do not directly decide who becomes our President, and this is by design.  

While our founders were not "perfect", they were generally studied men of principle who traced what they saw as the failures of previous and other societies, kingdoms and nations to identify the major causes of those failures, and develop a system whereby the risks of those failures were minimized.  It has been a grand experiment in a nation not controlled by religion, ancestry, vocation, etc., although excess direct and indirect control by those with incredible financial backing has always been somewhat of a problem.  The democratic foundations and processes within our constitutional republic can be chaotic at times, yet the constitutional framework controls or limits that chaos.

Our biggest internal threats are fiscal/financial irresponsibility, excess single-party politics, erosion of our constitutional framework (establishing and maintaining a functional, but limited government), erosion of our individual rights/freedoms, potential lack of principled leadership by those willing to step into the political fray, excess rule-making and control by unelected and superficially controlled government employees, self-interest groups and lobbies, and misinformed and/or disinterested populace.


Re: That could be big.

The last paragraph seems to pretty well describe Trumpism, with the possible exception of the "excess rulemaking" thing they threw in.

Adam Smith wasn't a founder but certainly was a product of the same Enlightenment. He was pretty clear that a free market requires rules, and in their absence those with power will screw, poison and kill you.

Seems like maybe we didn't get any education from the first kick of the deregulatory mule in the GFC?

Senior Advisor

Re: That could be big.

The first rule of the free market is that you sometimes fail.