IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New That would require more than failing to enforce the law
Suppose some state's legislature decides they're going to go with the Republican appointed electors despite Biden winning that state. Whatever is the time and place for the electors to show up and cast their votes, I would expect both the Republican and Democratic appointed electors to show up.

Some law enforcement agency would be called in to eject "trespassers" from the location. That agency would have to decide who are the trespassers, since both sides would claim the law is on their side.

Alternatively, if a state legislature simply refuses to convene the electors and send their own decision to Congress, it's the House that counts the votes. They would (I assume) refuse the votes from that rogue state on the grounds that they hadn't followed their own prescribed manner of voting.

Short version, I don't think simply ignoring the EC process and sending a vote from the state legislature would work. I want to know what the other methods are and who would have to be complicit.

New No legal violation.
Electors constitutionally remain free to cast their ballots for any person they wish and occasionally they have done so. In 1968, for example, a Republican elector in North Carolina chose to cast his vote not for Richard M. Nixon, who had won a plurality in the state, but for George Wallace, the independent candidate who had won the second greatest number of votes. Members of both the House of Representatives and of the Senate objected to counting that vote for Mr. Wallace and insisted that it should be counted for Mr. Nixon, but both bodies decided to count the vote as cast.


It's mourning in America again.
New Who appoints the electors?
Is it the same slate of electors no matter which party wins? I thought the slate of electors for each state is determined by who wins the popular vote. Is that not the case?

New Varies by State.
The U.S. Constitution does not specify procedures for the nomination of candidates for presidential elector. The two most common methods the states have adopted are nomination by state party convention and by state party committee. Generally, the parties select members known for their loyalty and service to the party, such as party leaders, state and local elected officials and party activists.


While I'm not suggesting for a moment that Trump could win re-election through faithless electors (he'd need too many - at least 40 by most counts), if he did so, it would be legal (Constitutionally, at any rate). If a State wants to make faithless electors illegal, they can, but many have not. Consider that in 2016 there was a record seven faithless electors.

A historic number of “faithless” electors -- seven in total--each cast their ballots on Monday for a candidate other than the one who won his or her state. What may be more surprising, given the level of protests against Donald Trump and the pressure exerted on Republican electors, is that a greater number were untrue to Hillary Clinton than to Mr. Trump.

Among the 538 electors chosen to represent their states in the Electoral College, five were faithless to the Democratic nominee and two to the Republican. Prior to this year, there hasn’t been more than one faithless elector in any presidential election since 1948. ...

Though there is no Constitutional provision or federal law barring electors from voting for whom they are pledged, more than half of the states, including D.C., “bind” their electors. The rest of electors may have the legal authority to vote for whomever they want, but, as CBS News previously reported, faithless electors have never decided a presidential election.


It's mourning in America again.
     The legal view - (pwhysall) - (13)
         Ha! - (mmoffitt) - (12)
             This, unfortunately - (drook) - (11)
                 Three Republican state legislatures ignoring their populaces' votes would do it. -NT - (malraux) - (5)
                     I don't think that's illegal. Unethical, sure, but we're talking Republicans here. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                     That would require more than failing to enforce the law - (drook) - (3)
                         No legal violation. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                             Who appoints the electors? - (drook) - (1)
                                 Varies by State. - (mmoffitt)
                 A pragmatic view? - (pwhysall) - (3)
                     I think Stephen Colbert said it best. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                         TBH that'll be the limit of it. - (pwhysall) - (1)
                             They'll never convict him in a jury trial. - (InThane)
                 They are trying to block/delay certification - (scoenye)

Fear the rubberwear.
69 ms