History, 28.10.2020 07:00 kordejah348

Why did the Supreme Court deem it important to uphold faithless elector laws? What might the consequences be if electors were allowed to vote differently than for the presidential candidate they were pledged to support?

Answers: 3

Show answers

Answers

Answer from: sa9334

In the case of Chiafalo v. Washington, the Supreme Court upheld the faithless elector laws of various states of the United States.

The Supreme Court did this because it said that letting electors vote the candidate they wanted, instead of those that the majority of the population of a state had chosen, would be akin to robbing the vote of the people which is against the principle of Popular Sovereignty.

There are also several consequences that would have arisen if the Supreme Court had voted not to uphold the Faithless elector laws such as:

Electors could become corrupt as they would be offered bribes to vote for a certain candidate. Electors could be targeted with violence by people unhappy that the electors did not vote the way they were supposed to Parties would have a harder time picking electors as they would not be assured of their loyalty

In conclusion, the Supreme Court made the most logical decision by upholding the faithless elector laws as it maintains popular sovereignty and the right of the people to vote for the President.

Find out more at link.

Answer from: nonispn606

The Supreme Court deemed it important to uphold the faithless elector laws being enacted by some states so that state electors do not go contrary to the intentions of their state's electoral bodies. In addition, the parties elected the electors to vote according to their party loyalties and not according to their individual preferences.

In simple terms, the Twelfth Amendment of the Constitution was not drafted to favor individual prejudices. Electors were specifically required to back their parties when casting their electoral college votes so that they could vote in line with their state's popular votes.

The consequences of allowing electors to vote differently than for the presidential candidate they were pledged to support are:

a) Electors risk using their state's mandate in favor of their personal prejudices.

b) Electors will become disloyal to the parties that elected/selected them as electors.

c) Electors may favor candidates that did not win their state's popular votes, thereby denying the people their right to have their votes counting.

Explanation:

The faithless elector laws being enacted by the states are one of the safeguards to ensure that electors vote for the candidates that win the popular votes in their respective states.

Answer from: Quest

die.

explanation:

Answer from: Quest

goof d geieuiuhfwehguwrhgu8uooiihvurg[

Another question on History

History, 22.06.2019 05:00

Why was l ‘enfant dismisses from his job? what activity was it suppose to stop?me, i beg you

Answers: 2

Answer

History, 22.06.2019 10:00

Which of these discoveries contradict components of dalton’s atomic theory?

Answers: 2

Answer

History, 22.06.2019 11:30

What is one economic change related to smartphones? the use of electronic paythe use of tellers in banksa decrease in automationan increase in automation

Answers: 2

Answer

History, 22.06.2019 13:00

What direct impact did the efforts of individuals like ava deer have? a. they led to peaceful protests, such as the occupation of alcatraz island. b. they led to a treaty that promised native americans to any federal surplus land. c. they led to the closing of the federal prison on alcatraz island. d. they led to the government declaring alcatraz island federal surplus land. plase me. fast!

Answers: 1

Answer

You know the right answer?

Why did the Supreme Court deem it important to uphold faithless elector laws? What might the consequ...

Questions