SCOTUS decreeing how states can and cannot allocate their votes would be a dangerous precedent in itself.
That said, I can't understand why any state would do this. Electors represent the state. When the will of the state lines up with the nation as a whole, the votes already go to towards that candidate. When they are not aligned, the state will be screwed over. California will have more influence on Nevada's Electors than Nevadans do.
SCOTUS decreeing how states can and cannot allocate their votes would be a dangerous precedent in itself.
That said, I can't understand why any state would do this. Electors represent the state. When the will of the state lines up with the nation as a whole, the votes already go to towards that candidate. When they are *not* aligned, the state will be screwed over. California will have more influence on Nevada's Electors than Nevadans do.
I was thinking it dictates in the Constitution how the electoral college works, but it does look like it leaves it up to the states to decide. In which case the legislators of those states would certainly face tremendous blow back in their local elections if they failed to support how their state voted.
I was thinking it dictates in the Constitution how the electoral college works, but it does look like it leaves it up to the states to decide. In which case the legislators of those states would certainly face tremendous blow back in their local elections if they failed to support how their state voted.
I don't see how this wouldn't be struck down by the SCOTUS.