Archived Federal appeals court rules Colorado Electoral College electors don't have to vote for winner (kdvr.com)
submitted ago by Awake2Truth
Posted by: Awake2Truth
Posting time: 1.3 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 11/20/2019 10:00:00 AM
Views: 13
SCP: 10
10 upvotes, 0 downvotes (100% upvoted it)
Archived Federal appeals court rules Colorado Electoral College electors don't have to vote for winner (kdvr.com)
submitted ago by Awake2Truth
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Gollywoggle ago (edited ago)
This is a scam attempted by the 10th Judicial District in Denver. Some headlines are claiming that this is a setback for the people who want to eliminate the electoral college but it actually helps them.
When citizens (or others) vote in the national election, they are not actually voting directly for the president. The States, not individuals, vote for the president. Citizens vote to tell their state who the state is to vote for. The state sends representatives (electoral voters) to a national location for the official casting of votes. Electoral voters are volunteers who pay a $200 bribe for the privilege and status of attending the national election for their state and cast their vote. There has always been a false idea in circulation that electoral voters are not bound by the will of the people of the state they represent and can, therefore, vote for whomever they please. This concept is not backed by the constitution (neither Article II, nor the 12th Amendment specifically mention elector discretion), and would violate the principle of having the state voters give their choice for president, only to have these non-elected and perhaps unaccountable electoral voters vote for whoever they feel like. Look at the huge built-in corruption factor. Basically, if you control who becomes the electoral voters, you don't need the vote of the American people to win the election. We actually saw hints of this activity during the 2016 election cycle when candidates were approaching the electors with various bribes. The judge "ruled" that an electoral voter is independent, and not obligated to vote the way the state voters or laws required. So, the judge just removed the unwashed masses from the equation.
How this helps with the removal of the electoral college (Plan B), is that by allowing the wildcard voting of the electoral voters to screw with the national election(s), the American people will get frustrated and demand that the system causing the frustration be scrapped.
The original court case involved a complaint that the liberal controlled state government of Colorado passed an unpopular law stating that no matter what the state voters wanted, the electoral voters had to vote for whichever presidential candidate won the national popular vote (again eliminating the unwashed masses). Of course, it was challenged in court because the liberal politicians will always overstep their authority. But instead of ruling that the law itself was unconstitutional, the judge ruled that the electoral voters were above any such laws and could vote any way they pleased. The judge just created a new authority for the un-elected electoral voters that has never been an accepted part of the national election process.
Hopefully, this ruling will be appealed.
[–] Awake2Truth [S] ago
Thank you for this intelligent analysis. I was really wondering if this was a good thing, or actually a set back to seeing the will of the people enacted. There is a lot of confusion about the connect or disconnect between the popular vote and the electoral college. What we do know is that the electoral college allows for a balance of representation that avoids a majority popular vote, swayed by urban areas, from always winning. This is an interesting ruling and I'll be watching what happens in Colorado. Jared Polis is far left and not good for the state so his support of blocking the electoral college does not bode well for the state.