There should be a new law on this

Post #22,621 by nking 12/28/01 3:01:06 PM Reply	There should be a new law on this that if they are unable to tell the winner and it is so close, that a new election has to be held. It may be possible that some people could change their votes after seeing the results of the first election. Just like in street football when a car is coming, get a "do-over"? "Before Christmas it is 'Ho ho ho', after Christmas it is 'Owe owe owe'" - Santa Norm
Post #22,627 by Ric Locke 12/28/01 3:31:49 PM Reply	What a free-for-all that would be we'd still, today, be in the middle of the fourth or fifth election. Do you remember the red/blue map? The country is divided, and the divide is over fairly fundamental issues -- not abortion or states' rights, but between urbanites and non-. That isn't going to change soon. What I'd propose is some variant on flipping a coin. Result would be at least as "valid" as what we have, it wouldn't take as long, and it would be 'way cheaper. Regards, Ric
Post #22,646 by boxley 12/28/01 7:37:48 PM Reply	current law is just fine In the case of a tie, the state legislature could step in as they have the authority to appoint electors. Once it hits the House/Senate if they feel the legislature oversteped its bounds they can throw out the electors and follow constitutional guidelines which means the representatives and the Senate pick from the top 3. It doesnt matter all eventualities are acounted for in the constitution. This should never have gone to the courts. The courts should have stayed out. thanx, bill who still cant stand either jamoke My Dreams aren't as empty as my conscience seems to be
Post #22,647 by nking 12/28/01 7:39:08 PM Reply	The courts should have stayed out maybe it came down to who had the better lawyers or had more clout with the courts? "Before Christmas it is 'Ho ho ho', after Christmas it is 'Owe owe owe'" - Santa Norm
Post #22,668 by Simon_Jester 12/28/01 10:41:52 PM Reply	actually, I'm not sure that is possible... I know that was bounced around a lot - but the legislature determine the method of selection of the electors. Once that method has been determined (direct vote of the legislature/direct vote of the people/etc), I'm not sure the legislature can change that method.
Post #22,670 by boxley 12/28/01 10:53:42 PM Reply	one more time The federal constitution calls for the state legislatures to pick electors. Most states passed laws allowing direct elections so a legislative overturning of a flawed electoral process might be illegal under state law it is perfectly acceptable under federal constitution guidelines. That is why the option of the Senate disallowing electors from a troubled state is on the books. Alcee Hastings tried to get the FLA electors tossed but GOE refused the motion to go to the floor. Frankly I would have liked the exercise to play out to demonstrate to the country how strong we can be, President Denny anyone? :) thanx, bill My Dreams aren't as empty as my conscience seems to be

Welcome to IWETHEY!