Federal Appeals Court Rules State Electors May Vote For Who They Want | Velshi & Ruhle | MSNBC

 

A federal appeals court has ruled that state electors do not have to cast their ballot for the winner of the state's popular vote. NBC's Pete Williams has more details on the ruling and what this means for future elections.
» Subscribe to MSNBC:

MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, Meet the Press Daily, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House with Nicolle Wallace, Hardball, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and more.

Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com:
Subscribe to MSNBC Newsletter:
Find MSNBC on Facebook:
Follow MSNBC on Twitter:
Follow MSNBC on Instagram:

Federal Appeals Court Rules State Electors May Vote For Who They Want | Velshi & Ruhle | MSNBC

71 Comments on "Federal Appeals Court Rules State Electors May Vote For Who They Want | Velshi & Ruhle | MSNBC"

  1. Thanasis Dunn | August 21, 2019 at 6:30 PM | Reply

    Can we just get a popular vote for presidential elections? Good grief. So undemocratic.

  2. How is the USA a democracy?

  3. So what’s the point of us voting if the electorals can vote for whoever they want?

    • @Real Talk76 Actually, the EC was designed to grant disproportionate power to the southern states, who had many more slaves than the north. This was helped by the fact that they guaranteed slaves were counted for representation, at least 3/5 of the way. Since reforms that attempted to incorporate the popular vote into the system, the system has become a vestige of the 3/5 compromise and the real perception that the common people were not able to comprehend political affairs enough to vote for the chief executive. Times have changed since 1789 and every result based on the EC win over popular vote(since reforms) turned out to be terrible presidents. It is time to abolish the system, we risk further democratic backsliding if it is preserved.

    • So let me say that this is the beginning to the end of the electoral college …. this is bad for republicans too because electors are selected by party vote lines …. simply put if the majority of votes are democrat the electors have no choice but to select democrat … however they get to chose who they want for the ticket out of the specific majority party. So in the end they could theoretically not select anyone

    • @Real Talk76 I think I said that, but thank you.

    • @Samo1o14 EXCELLENT POINTS! “Disproportionate power” is a great summation of what the electoral college is designed to do. Too bad you didn’t trademark that point because I’m stealing that! There’s just too many things about the system that are no longer applicable and just don’t make any sense. A governor is chosen based on the borders of the state and the President should be chosen based on the borders of the country.

    • @Savlo Savage Man, I hope so. My primary concern for this next election cycle is whether the elector that wrote in John Kasich instead of Hillary Clinton was a test run for what’s to come. How corruptible are they? It’s never been tested and the Supreme Court just sided with the elector and not the state that switched the vote back to Hillary.

  4. Power was meant to be with the PEOPLE! NOT 270 individuals that can be bribed, coerced, or disloyal to the majority! We need to get rid of the electoral college!!!

    • Filipe Saramago | August 21, 2019 at 11:11 PM | Reply

      @Yvonne Myers but that’s not how federalism works

    • @Filipe Saramago It’s how Democracy should work.

    • Filipe Saramago | August 21, 2019 at 11:22 PM | Reply

      @Yvonne Myers it’s not how it works whenever youre dealing with autonomous or semi autonomous states.

      Why would Wyoming be part of a union where it doesn’t have a voice? How would the concerns specific to that state be attended to? A real democratic system has to represent not just people but also territory, even if less densely populated. Those people in the cities are eating food grown in those rural places, amongst other things

    • @Filipe Saramago I understand that’s why the electoral college was created but it only seems right that each and every vote counts. If any state or territory has voters, they would be counted in a popular vote system. Do you really think the BS we have now is right or fair? The electoral votes are more in line with party or personal agenda than what the majority wants in MANY states already. For any proposed solution to this colossal mess, I’m sure there will be a downside of one nature or another. I feel changes MUST be made to get meddling of ALL sorts (interior or exterior) stopped. If any genius has a workable solution, they should get the idea to the masses and push for it. . . maybe even run for potus.

    • Filipe Saramago | August 21, 2019 at 11:46 PM | Reply

      @Yvonne Myers it’s actually very easy, just make the electoral college vote proportionally instead of winner takes all

  5. Jesse Stewart | August 21, 2019 at 6:39 PM | Reply

    You mean we have to depend on our electors to actually have integrity?? I think we’re doomed…

  6. Mike Blatzheim | August 21, 2019 at 6:39 PM | Reply

    If they can do that, why even bother having the general population vote in the first place? You have to have the results of the election count (every vote equally), anything else is undemocratic. Having the electors vote how they want is even worse than the system now.

    • ExPFC Wintergreen v2.0 | August 21, 2019 at 7:05 PM | Reply

      It is the way the Founding Fathers intended it. The electors have the ability to reject those who are unfit for office (Trump)

    • Mike Blatzheim | August 21, 2019 at 7:26 PM | Reply

      @ExPFC Wintergreen v2.0
      Doesn’t change the undemocratic nature of a system that’s 250 years old. At some point the issues that have become apparent over time need to be fixed, after all, that’s why amendments exist.

    • @ExPFC Wintergreen v2.0 No, it is not the way the Founding Fathers intended it. If that were accurate, Trump would not have been elected.

    • Douglas Daniel | August 22, 2019 at 10:42 AM | Reply

      @ExPFC Wintergreen v2.0 Exactly. The Electoral College singularly failed to do the thing it was supposed to do, which was keep out unfit doofuses. We need to do away with this broken institution. If people are afraid this will mean that the urban/coasts will dominate the rural/center, then they need to get creative and come up with some way to balance things out, but the EC is way past its ‘use by’ date.

  7. we dont need electors to vote for us. their services are no longer needed.

    • @UC48Q3eUDqRtysQlPc1cAp0Q Every democrat has plans that go against the Constitution and God himself so it depends on which side your on. If Trump is going against the 1st and 2nd Amendment you’re welcome to explain that one because that is the issue going to be fought over.

    • Robie Robertson | August 22, 2019 at 9:21 AM | Reply

      @David M actually it was Trump who banded bump stocks and is going after suppressors next

    • @Robie Robertson I know this. A law abiding citizen shouldn’t have a problem with it. Just like a law abiding citizen shouldn’t need to hide their face like Antifa.

    • Robie Robertson | August 22, 2019 at 9:33 AM | Reply

      @David M what are you saying your antifa because you’re hiding your face now. Lol. Don’t be scared.. Trump will be going after AR-15 next

    • @Robie Robertson Omg you Are confused

  8. trump cartel wants to know how much money it will cost for him to win, vladdy just asking

  9. So now the Electoral College can be bought

  10. No Time For Hate | August 21, 2019 at 6:58 PM | Reply

    In Australia, we aren’t registered as a particular political party supporter. Conservative? Liberal? It doesn’t matter, the government has NO RECORD of who they vote for.

    • By definition that is true for all democratic countries, can’t have free votes otherwise. In places like, China, Russia, USA or Iran people may vote, but that doesn’t make those places a democracy. Its not the voting that counts but the political system around it!

  11. Radwulf Eboraci | August 21, 2019 at 6:59 PM | Reply

    So before you start dancing, realize your electors will now be up for sale to the highest bidder. Which will be Vladimir Putin.

  12. Bribes all the way around.
    We the people my @$$.

  13. Our country is a becoming a bigger joke every day. What a big mess of corruption.

  14. Again, the electoral college disenfranchises voters and should be unconstitutional. It’s a pointless and corruptible system.

    • Filipe Saramago | August 22, 2019 at 10:37 AM | Reply

      @Real Talk76 the point is that no state can have less than 3 electoral votes even if their population would not warrant that many. That’s exactly what keeps any state from simply having no voice

    • @Filipe Saramago I actually didn’t know that there was a minimum, that’s interesting. But the founders didn’t trust the people and I don’t trust the electors or the system that was created. States don’t vote, the people do! The power of the state is not derived from it’s borders, it comes from the people within it. States are not in danger of losing their voice because they will always have a voice in Congress. You are worried about under representation but the true concern is that states are over represented. The tail is wagging the dog and the system is being manipulated to root out the true will and voice of the people. The only border that matters when it comes to the executive branch is the outer border because we are one nation so we should vote as one.

    • Filipe Saramago | August 22, 2019 at 11:29 AM | Reply

      @Real Talk76 so you are against federalism after all 😉

    • @Filipe Saramago No, just have a different perspective on what it means. Federalism is achieved through the structure of Congress and separation of powers. The electoral college allows states to defy the will of their constituents and disenfranchise the smaller voting block. What you’re talking about is not federalism, it’s confederation.

    • Filipe Saramago | August 22, 2019 at 12:00 PM | Reply

      @Real Talk76 the separation of powers has nothing to do with federalism. Does the “Russian Federation” have much in the way of separation of powers in practise?

  15. Theresa Jones | August 21, 2019 at 7:12 PM | Reply

    Do away with the electoral college. It’s antiquated and unnecessary.

  16. It is the only way they can rig elections with only 35% support. That and all the Russian help

  17. Flavius Stilicho | August 21, 2019 at 7:23 PM | Reply

    *END THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE:* _Vote ALL republicans out of ALL political offices mercilessly and without remorse._ THEN AMEND THE CONSTITUTION!

    • This needs to happen in every state, it is the only way we can amend the constitution. If enough states are flipped, we can bypass congress by having the states call a constitutional convention. We all know the Republican Senators won’t change a thing, except make a system more undemocratic.

    • @Samo1o14 Make the GOP extinct or life on earth will go extinct. We have very little time left.

  18. Flavius Stilicho | August 21, 2019 at 7:26 PM | Reply

    Democracy: One person, One vote. Majority = 50% + 1. Majority RULES. End the electoral college.

    • Filipe Saramago | August 21, 2019 at 10:46 PM | Reply

      So you’re for abolishing federalism? One person one vote in matters that involve more than one state means the end of federalism

  19. Darlene Shriver | August 21, 2019 at 7:30 PM | Reply

    I thought this was a government for the people by the people! Why are a few allowed to decide, maybe time to do away with this!

  20. Federico Barrio Linares | August 21, 2019 at 7:41 PM | Reply

    This means Trump/putin dont have to buy millions of votes, only 270 shady guys.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.