The Gary Johnson thread
- Thread starter Jon
- Start date
You mean you don't want to age yourself by a decade in only 4 years, all the while not having any fun that would typically age you a decade in 4 years?
I've been pumping him for a while now. He's the only candidate out there that liberals and conservatives on Tidefans can agree on. If he can do that, he can do anything.
Monica is very disappointed with your decision...she would have taken care of your "headaches"...
I get that. What I meant was the electors could vote for whoever they wanted to. If two Bush electors had decided to honor the national popular vote in 2000, history takes a different path.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Okay. Gotcha.
Electors, however, are determined on a state by state basis, so going to against the candidate that won your state to vote for the candidate that won the total popular vote would be unpopular within that Elector's state.
If an Alabama* Bush Elector in 2000 had said, "To heck with this. Gore won the popular vote nationwide, so, having been elected as a Bush elector, I am going to switch my vote to Gore." That dude might not be the most popular guy with Alabama Republicans after having voted.
* Assuming Alabama is NOT one of those states that mandates by law that Electors vote for the candidate who won the state popular vote. If Alabama does require that, then amend my hypothetical to use some state that does not require that.
According to the link a few posts back, Alabama electors are required by law to go the way the state voted. (I did not check Virginia).
But I do not know what the penalty is. Or is a state law even enforceable over a federal election?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But I do not know what the penalty is. Or is a state law even enforceable over a federal election?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Technically it is not a Federal election, it is a state election of Electors who will elect a president of the United States.
But, given the way in which the Federal government looks at limitations on Federal power (i.e. "there are no limitations on federal power, just state laws we have not yet overthrown.").
If an elector were to change his/her vote from the candidate that won his/her state to a third party candidate, but this switch did not change the outcome of the election, that would raise some eyebrows.
If he was to change his vote to the other major party candidate and the other major candidate won the EC and the switch changed the outcome of the election, that would be a constitutional crisis for the EC (which may not be a bad thing).
Last edited:
I'm afraid you have conflated 2 entirely different reports. You site an apparently false report by KUTV. I site a report from the Salt Lake Tribune which AFAIK has not been debunked. See here: http://www.sltrib.com/news/4147893-155/trump-winning-utah-converts-but-has?fullpage=1
Should someone debunk what I actually cited then I'll be slightly disappointed in the untrue report. As it is, the KUTV "poll" has nothing to do with it.
Interesting take. I don't claim to be a constitutional lawyer, but, although the electors are selected by state vote, the vote they are taking part in is very much a federal election. I think the parallel would be if a state tried to bind their US representative to vote a certain way in the Congress. You elect them and then they vote their conscience, or could. IOW, I'm not sure at all that it's a binding statute...
Article II
Section I
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
I do believe the wording here gives the individual states recourse, should they choose to use the power. IOW, if Alabama wanted to attach consequences to an action that runs counter to the law then they could. I am not familiar with any such provision so I don't know if Alabama has or lacks the ability to enforce the legislature's will on the matter.
26 states have required by state law that their electors vote per the general election, some even specifying that a vote otherwise is void and the elector is replaced...that leaves the other 24 to "let your conscience be you guide"...that said, if the vote is very close, and Johnson pulls even a few electoral votes (denying anyone form getting 270), the election could go to the House.
My first impression is that those statutes are void insofar as they attempt to morph the EC into a direct election, which the Constitution clearly did not contemplate. However, I don't know if those statutes have been court-tested. I'll look, but I don't think so. Wouldn't be the first time for broad, unconstitutional statutes passed by state legislatures...
Here is my source:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html#restrictions
"Are there restrictions on who the Electors can vote for?There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states. Some states, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.
Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged."
Further to the bottom is a list of states with laws...this election could get really, really hinky...
Gotta go work on the fence--back later to keep the pot stirred...
Given the contempt in which the Federal government generally holds limitations on its powers, this would is merely a constitutional provision they have not yet thrown out. It would not surprise me at all if some elector one day challenges the state law in a Federal court and a Federal judge overturned the state statute. In fact, it would it would surprise me more if a Federal judge did not overturn such a law.
Good source. It goes without saying that this is the election which will break all the rules...
You almost have to wonder if there is enough money to influence the Electors. Barring that will there be messages targeted specifically at them? I imagine the identities of the Electors is in the public domain. Given the recent statements regarding the use of nukes by Trump, or at least the unsubstantiated rumor that an advisor said he asked why they were off the table, how long until targeted messaging starts to try and influence the Electors into a vote for anyone but Trump?
Technically isn't that the whole point of the Electoral college and having a Republic as a means of governance? Sometimes the public cannot be trusted.
Latest threads
-
-
-
SIAP there was an article that Joe K interviewed for assistant coach
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 11
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
