Much of American democracy, it turns out, runs on precedent.

How things have worked in the past help us understand how they ought to work now.

Many parts of our democracy function because years of established norms guide them.

But sometimes that precedent and those standards face the courts, a chance to take longstanding

norms and codify them into law.

We saw one of those moments at the Supreme Court this week.

The presidential electors cast a vote in the electoral college that ultimately determines

the presidency.

These electors, usually, almost always vote for the winner of their state's popular vote.

So if Donald Trump wins the popular vote in Oklahoma, for example, all of Oklahoma's

electors vote for Trump in the electoral college.

But in many states, it's just an assumption that electors will vote as they've pledged.

That's how it's always been done.

And that leaves open a question.

What happens if an elector decides to go rogue, to cast a vote in the electoral college

for someone else?

And furthermore, what happens if those changes?

If those votes go against the people's votes, an alter the outcome of a presidential election?

The Supreme Court Monday weighed in to quash some of those questions before they arise.

The court ruled unanimously that states can require presidential electors to support the

winner of its popular vote, and may punish or replace those who don't.

Now, this decision carries weight for our upcoming presidential election.

...