Ok D-knobs, Below is a link to the National Conference OfState Legislatures. However I’ve taken the liberty of pasting in the part that pertains to my argument.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/the-electoral-college.aspx

Faithless Electors

There is no federal law or constitutional provision requiring electors to vote for the party that nominated them, and over the years a number of electors have voted against the instructions of the voters. In 2004, a Minnesota elector nominated by the Democratic Party cast a ballot for John Edwards, the vice presidential running mate of John Kerry--thought to be an accident. Electors generally are selected by the political party for their party loyalty, and many are party leaders, and thus not likely to vote other than for their party's candidate.

In 2016, there were seven faithless electors, the most since 1972—three Democratic electors from Washington state cast their votes for Republican Colin Powell, instead of Democrat Hillary Clinton; one Democratic elector from Washington state cast his vote for Faith Spotted Eagle, a woman who is a member of the Yankton Sioux Nation; one Democratic elector from Hawaii cast his vote for Bernie Sanders, instead of Hillary Clinton; one Republican elector from Texas cast his vote for John Kasich, instead of Donald Trump; and one Republican elector from Texas cast his vote for Libertarian Ron Paul. The last time an elector crossed party lines was in 1972, when an elector nominated by the Republican Party cast his ballot for the Libertarian ticket.

Some states have passed laws that require their electors to vote as pledged. These laws may either impose a fine on an elector who fails to vote according to the statewide or district popular vote, or may disqualify an elector who violates his or her pledge and provide a replacement elector. In July 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is constitutional for states to enact this type of law. The states with laws that attempt to bind the votes of presidential electors are below:

States With Laws That Attempt to Bind the Votes of Presidential Electors

Alabama

Mississippi

Alaska

Montana

Arizona

Nebraska

California

Nevada

Colorado

New Mexico

Connecticut

North Carolina

Delaware

Oklahoma

District of Columbia

Ohio

Florida

Oregon

Hawaii

South Carolina

Indiana

Tennessee

Maine

Vermont

Maryland

Virginia

Massachusetts

Washington

Michigan

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Wyoming

Most of the laws cited above require electors to vote for the candidate of the party that nominated the elector, or require the elector to sign a pledge to do so. Some go further: Oklahoma imposes a civil penalty of $1,000; in North Carolina, the fine is $500, the faithless elector is deemed to have resigned, and a replacement is appointed. In South Carolina, an elector who violates his or her pledge is subject to criminal penalties, and in New Mexico a violation is a fourth degree felony. In Michigan and Utah, a candidate who fails to vote as required is considered to have resigned, and a replacement is appointed.

Additional Resources

• U.S. National Archives and Records Administration
• National Popular Vote

D-nobs, Actually all the links you posted agree with me. In each case they said states “CAN” force electors to abide by the popular vote. In none of the links do they say, states MUST force electors to abide by the the results of the popular vote.

The Supreme Court, in this instance, never heard a case requiring all electors be forced to abide by the popular vote. The case brought before them was about states (currently 32) having the right to force electors to abide by those states laws. And that is what the 9-0 vote was all about. But if states do not have laws requiring electors to abide by the results of the popular vote, as some states don’t, then they are still not required to force electors to abide by the popular vote.

You’re right Door Knobs, I was wrong. It was actually 32 states and the District of Columbia that are involved in the case, not 38. That means that 18 states, not 12 states do not require their electors to necessarily vote for the candidate that won the popular vote in that state.

This is a quote from the CNN report you posted. “In all, 32 states and the District of Columbia have laws that are meant to discourage faithless electors. But until 2016, no state had ever actually punished or removed an elector because of his or her vote”.

Yes, the vote was 9-0 affirming that those 32 states have the right to require their electors to vote for the candidate that won the popular vote and punish them if they do not do so. But nowhere does it say that the other 18 states are required to do the same. It’s a states right matter and each state has the right to make the choice as to what they require from their electors.

The case was never about forcing all states to require all electors to vote for the popular vote winner. I was simply about allowing the states that do require their electors to vote for the popular vote candidate, to be punished if they do not. This decision does not affect the 18 states that do not require electors to vote for the popular vote candidate, unless they should change their state laws to conform to the states that do.

Believe me, I realize that this is a fact that you will never admit to and you will always believe that you are right. You can believe it all you want, but that doesn’t make it so.

And, by the way, even though this concerns a Federal election, states have great latitude about how they conduct these elections...where they put their polling places...how many polling places...laws concerning early voting...mail in ballots...voter eligibility requirements...etc...etc. I've lived in 4 different states and each state has different laws regarding elections. Federal or otherwise.

Adios.

What is "enlightenment," avn013? Or rather, what is it not?

#28 unfortunately this is what happens when you have 50 million unemployed and cannot even go to school due to an inept POTUS. They demonstrate. The rest of the world is doing much better than us.

Stopgap:

It's a 9-0 decision. If you believe a candidate is going to lose an election because rogue electors vote for a candidate other than the winner of the popular vote in that particular state we'll....justice kegan did NOT differentiate between the different state laws. One more point, the presidential election is a Federal election. How the president is elected is protected by the constitution. The only way to change that is by an amendment to the constitution. This case was brought before the Supreme Court because some states tried to say they had the right to allow the electors to vote for other than then that states winner. It's over. Move on.

We cover all college and university topics, so your paper is in good hands! Make an order now and enjoy your day, while a subject matter expert will be completing your paper. https://bestresearchpaper.com/

https://eand.co/do-americans-get-that-trump-is-instituting-martial-law-8...
Must read!
Someone who's been there leads us through the insideous onset of martial law.

stopgap: One of the “classic” koans? Zen 101?

This is “next” level for this blog. It also reminds me that I found this blog after “running into” Thom’s interesting “explanation” (more of an opinion) about “where money REALLY came from” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ru7mYEippY) for reasons related more to “Giri” and “Gimu” than to economics and politics. So, in some respect, your koan is a “step in the past” (Thom’s past).

A couple of links for koans in case anyone is interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gateless_Barrier and https://www.dailyzen.com/journal/the-gateless-gate. Due to age I neither have the stamina nor the time to go through all these koans.

But, I think that deepspace’s comment (“And... the more time seeking an answer, the more air swishing back and forth.”), although humorous forgets that “enlightenment”, if reached, is instantaneous and (therefore) in a sense timeless.

In addition koans are simple (very simple) exercises. As a good engineer or scientist will tell us, solving many exercises is good practice, but no guarantee that one can solve (or even begin to solve) a REAL problem. Exercises are on purpose gross and exaggerated simplifications of the real problems (reality) that surround us. Being able to solve them does not mean that we are ready to face reality. But still is better than avoiding/ignoring them, since there does not seem to be another way on the path of knowledge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Teachings_of_Don_Juan)

As Thom, and many others have said; If Libertarianism is such a great system, why has no such system been established in human history? Outside of individual belief , or has it?

Stopgap:

You're wrong! Here's what Justice kegan wrote. "Today, we consider whether a State may also penalize an elector for breaking his pledge and voting for someone other than the presidential candidate who won his State's popular vote. We hold that a State may do so," Justice Elena Kagan wrote. No mention of states having a right to allow someone to vote for who ever they please. I'm sure if that occurred, the winner of the popular vote in that state would sue and have the vote reversed based on the supreme court's decision.

No quite “Door Knobs” The court ruled that the 38 states plus the District of Columbia, currently requiring Electors to go along with the popular vote, have that right. And the 12 states that allow their Electors to vote for whomever they feel is warranted, still have that right. In other words, the court ruled states have the right to require Electors to honor the results of the popular vote, or NOT. The court did not rule that states are required to force Electors to go along with the popular vote. States have he right to do either. States have the right to require or not to require. Its up to the states!!