The Constitution gives Maine the power to distribute electors as they choose.
There is no concept of a "faithless elector" in the Constitution because that is based on the concept that the elector should be faithful to the popular vote of that state.
Since the Constitution does not contain any concept of a popular vote for president no electors could be unfaithful.
Maine's actions cannot be challenged as unconstitutional since they are based on a future condition which might never occur.
My comments have nothing to do with supporting (I do) or opposing the electoral college.
There is no concept of a "faithless elector" in the US constitution? Just what does Article 4, Section 4, Clause one declare? "The union "guarantees" a republican form of government to all states...." What is a republican form of government? Ask James Madison as stated quite unambiguously in Federalist No. 10 (a historical document and its content that most liberals feign ignorance of its very existence). Republicanism is a representative form of government organization. Republicanism guarantees rights that cannot be repealed through majority vote. Republicanism formed the basis for several things, "The American Revolution", "The Declaration of Independence", "The US Constitution", and the following "Bill of Rights", Republicanism rejected a government format of being a Representative Republic...i.e, such as in the USSR..etc., and presented itself as a Representative CONSTITUTIONAL Republic...were no right found to exist in the constitution can be alienated (transferred) to any majority rule.....to include a STATE attempting to ignore the guarantee of representation to its people via political dictation.
Of course there is Federalist No. 68....addressing certain rules pertaining to the Electors. The very first rule addressed by Hamilton(aka....Publius)?
THE ELECTORS MEET ONLY WITHIN THEIR SPECIFIC STATES TO SELECT THE PRESIDENT
Strange that Democrats often attempt to argue about things NOT FOUND in the CONSTITUTION, assuming that because something is not addressed that makes it legal. In fact the US CONSTITUION is not a list of things that the PEOPLE can do....its a negative document listing the things that a federal government cannot do. And one thing the Constitution does imply is that no state has the right to tell an Electoral College Elector.....how to vote, thus TRADITION has always been followed that Electors should remain loyal to the popular vote of each state and cast their votes accordingly.
There has never been a SCOTUS decision regarding a FAITHLESS ELECTOR (that has established legal precedent).....there has been serval cases, but the issue is simply ducked by the court system. Democrats talk about others creating a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS …..yet they attempt to legislate one crisis after another. In reality the right case simply has not made its way to the SCOTUS....when it does there are any number of paths to argue against a state attempting to take away the constitutional authority of any Electoral College Elector to vote how he/she wishes. Most honest, righteous, and virtuous individuals would follow the will of the people...but no...democrats want the authority to demand that the EC vote be cast how the politicians want to vote on a national level.
One simple question for the State of Maine? Since there is no legal precedent considering the FAITHLESS ELECTOR.....what is to stop ONE....or any number of Electors (depending upon state size) from going rouge and independent from any state mandate? Its a constitutional SLIPERY SLOPE....all because of TDS.
Anyone find us ONE SCOTUS example of establishing precedent that would punish a EC elector for going rouge. Yet, Maine is going to legislate the EC into compliance with the state legislators dictates to hand over their authority to a national popular vote?
Again....I must defer my opinion back to the obvious. Dictating anything other than reflecting the will of a peoples state in relation to choosing a POTUS is indeed voter disenfranchising.
