My question is about what the legal process would be if that happens. My understanding is that most state laws require electors to case their
vote for the intended candidate and, in some cases, at least, require replacement of the elector with one who commits to voting for the right person. But some state laws merely impose fines and do not remove the elector or require the vote to change. More important, perhaps, the
fact that a faithless elector even exists might not become known until
the votes are actually read on January 6th. I'm just wondering what the legal recourse would be, if any, for a candidate who discovers on
January 6th that the victory he or she expected is taken away due to a faithless elector.
On 10/19/2024 8:01 AM, Rick wrote:
My question is about what the legal process would be if that happens.
My understanding is that most state laws require electors to case
their vote for the intended candidate and, in some cases, at least,
require replacement of the elector with one who commits to voting for
the right person. But some state laws merely impose fines and do not
remove the elector or require the vote to change. More important,
perhaps, the fact that a faithless elector even exists might not
become known until the votes are actually read on January 6th. I'm
just wondering what the legal recourse would be, if any, for a
candidate who discovers on January 6th that the victory he or she
expected is taken away due to a faithless elector.
As you noted, some states require electors to vote for the candidate on
whose slate he/she was elected. The Supreme Court has ruled that the
vote will be counted for that candidate regardless of the elector's
choice. (I think that this ruling is in error and against the plain
language of the Constitution - talk about "original intent" - but I'm
not even a lawyer.)
In the case of a challenge - whether of a faithless elector or a dispute
over the election, vote count, etc. - the procedure is set by the
Electoral Count Act of 1887.
“Objections to individual state returns must be made in writing by at
least one Member each of the Senate and House of Representatives. If an objection meets these requirements, the joint session recesses and the
two houses separate and debate the question in their respective chambers
for a maximum of two hours,” the CRS said. “The two houses then vote separately to accept or reject the objection. They then reassemble in
joint session, and announce the results of their respective votes. An objection to a state’s electoral vote must be approved by BOTH houses in order for any contested votes to be excluded.”
(emphasis mine)
“Objections to individual state returns must be made in writing by at
least one Member each of the Senate and House of Representatives. If
an objection meets these requirements, the joint session recesses and
the two houses separate and debate the question in their respective
chambers for a maximum of two hours,” the CRS said. “The two houses
then vote separately to accept or reject the objection. They then
reassemble in joint session, and announce the results of their
respective votes. An objection to a state’s electoral vote must be
approved by BOTH houses in order for any contested votes to be excluded.” >> (emphasis mine)
Unfortunately, that's a political solution which may be influenced by
the political makeup of the two bodies. For example, if Candidate A
wins the election but due to the actions of a faithless elector or two, Candidate B ends up with the most votes, and if Candidate B's party
happens to hold the majority in at least one body, they may not choose
to act. In that case, the country could end up with a president who
would have lost the electoral vote based on the actual state results.
I used to think the UK should have a written constitution.
I'm not so sure now ....
In misc.legal.moderated, on Sun, 20 Oct 2024 12:33:59 -0700 (PDT),
Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:
I used to think the UK should have a written constitution.
I'm not so sure now ....
Lots of big problems with ours, giving the same number of senators to
small states as big. When we got started, the ratio in population was
iirc 8-1, now California to Wyoming is aiui 80-1. And the number of
electors is the sum of the number of reps and senators, so again small
states get an unfair advantage.
But what is worse is the winner take all rule regarding state electors.
I guess it's left over from the early feeling that each state was almost
as separate as a separate country and if one candidate got a majority,
ALL the electors should vote for him. When I lived in Chicago and NY,
I guess there was plenty of nation-centered activity. Chicago had the Democratic convention and NYC has loads of stuff.
But when I got to Maryland, I gradually noticed that we are left out of
the presidential campaign. This has been true of other states too and
this year all the campaigning is in 7 states. That's not right.
If we got rid of the winner-take-all-rule, then *every* state would have
at least one elector in play. Candidates would campaign in all 50
states and no one's vote would be as unimportant as mine is this year.
Both Democrats and Republicans in states that are certain to go one way
or the other have no impact on the election.
A good book on this is _No Democracy Lasts Forever_ by the dean of the
law school of UC Berkeley. Based on his 1-hour radio interview, he
seems to make what I consider one mistake. A caller asked him about gerrymandering and wouldn't that pollute the electoral votes like it
does congressional votes, and he agreed and said it could be remedied by
a federal law outlawing partisan gerrymandering.
Yes it could, but I don't think electors should be elected from
Congressional districts. The state should cast its votes and the
percent of the vote that each candidate gets state-wide should determine
the percent of electors he gets, unrelated to where in the state his
votes were cast. As good and democratic as this is, Republicans in Congress won't vote for it because it would diminish their power. And nothing has shown more clearly than the last 3 years that power is what
they want. For example, see all the nasty things Mitch McConnell said
about trump and yet he's on their team now. And Nikki Haley and others.
I think for the US, "winner takes all" seems to cause similar problems to
the UKs First Past The Post system. Where in many cases the winning
candidate can safely ignore the majority of the electorate.
One thing I have noticed in my life, is nature tends to solve problems
where man can't (or won't). Electoral reform being an example. However, another thing I have noticed is that nature really doesn't care how it
fixes things. Something victims of extreme weather events (or a
succession thereof) will probably agree with.
Electoral systems based on 2 parties fail spectacularly quickly in cases where the electorate can be polarized around several mutually exclusive single issues. For the UK Brexit (and now membership of the Council of Europe) did just that. In the US it seems to be womens rights in general, plus gun laws, plus immigration. And both sides of the water that is an engineered and artificial situation.
When the bookies start taking odds on the next US civil war, it will be
an interesting choice who to back. In 1860 it was a no brainer the Union would prevail. However there doesn't seem to be a modern equivalent.
Although I suspect if you live in Mississippi you may well be on the
losing side.
The real bottom line is that if you want to change the system, get
enough like-minded people to agree with you and do so. If you are not
able to do that, than maybe people are more satisfied with the current
system than you realize.
I think for the US, "winner takes all" seems to cause similar problems to
the UKs First Past The Post system. Where in many cases the winning
candidate can safely ignore the majority of the electorate.
One thing I have noticed in my life, is nature tends to solve problems
where man can't (or won't). Electoral reform being an example. However, >another thing I have noticed is that nature really doesn't care how it
fixes things. Something victims of extreme weather events (or a
succession thereof) will probably agree with.
Electoral systems based on 2 parties fail spectacularly quickly in cases >where the electorate can be polarized around several mutually exclusive >single issues. For the UK Brexit (and now membership of the Council of >Europe) did just that. In the US it seems to be womens rights in general, >plus gun laws, plus immigration.
And both sides of the water that is an
engineered and artificial situation.
When the bookies start taking odds on the next US civil war, it will be
an interesting choice who to back. In 1860 it was a no brainer the Union >would prevail. However there doesn't seem to be a modern equivalent.
Although I suspect if you live in Mississippi you may well be on the
losing side.
Again.
One state - Alaska - has implemented a ranked voting system. It seems to
be doing what it was designed to do: produce winners who are closer to
the center rather than voters having to choose between two extremists.
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 10:23:50 -0700, Rick wrote:
The real bottom line is that if you want to change the system, get
enough like-minded people to agree with you and do so. If you are not
able to do that, than maybe people are more satisfied with the current
system than you realize.
You could have said the same thing in 1788 in France ...
On 10/21/2024 1:18 AM, micky wrote:
In misc.legal.moderated, on Sun, 20 Oct 2024 12:33:59 -0700 (PDT),
Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:
I used to think the UK should have a written constitution.
I'm not so sure now ....
Lots of big problems with ours, giving the same number of senators to
small states as big. When we got started, the ratio in population was
iirc 8-1, now California to Wyoming is aiui 80-1. And the number of
electors is the sum of the number of reps and senators, so again small
states get an unfair advantage.
But what is worse is the winner take all rule regarding state electors.
I guess it's left over from the early feeling that each state was almost
as separate as a separate country and if one candidate got a majority,
ALL the electors should vote for him. When I lived in Chicago and NY,
I guess there was plenty of nation-centered activity. Chicago had the
Democratic convention and NYC has loads of stuff.
But when I got to Maryland, I gradually noticed that we are left out of
the presidential campaign. This has been true of other states too and
this year all the campaigning is in 7 states. That's not right.
If we got rid of the winner-take-all-rule, then *every* state would have
at least one elector in play. Candidates would campaign in all 50
states and no one's vote would be as unimportant as mine is this year.
Both Democrats and Republicans in states that are certain to go one way
or the other have no impact on the election.
A good book on this is _No Democracy Lasts Forever_ by the dean of the
law school of UC Berkeley. Based on his 1-hour radio interview, he
seems to make what I consider one mistake. A caller asked him about
gerrymandering and wouldn't that pollute the electoral votes like it
does congressional votes, and he agreed and said it could be remedied by
a federal law outlawing partisan gerrymandering.
Yes it could, but I don't think electors should be elected from
Congressional districts. The state should cast its votes and the
percent of the vote that each candidate gets state-wide should determine
the percent of electors he gets, unrelated to where in the state his
votes were cast. As good and democratic as this is, Republicans in
Congress won't vote for it because it would diminish their power. And
nothing has shown more clearly than the last 3 years that power is what
they want. For example, see all the nasty things Mitch McConnell said
about trump and yet he's on their team now. And Nikki Haley and others.
I suspect if the roles were reversed and it was the Democrats who
dominated the rural areas and small states like Utah and Wyoming and the >Republicans who dominated big cities and large states like NY and
California, you might feel differently.
I find that most people who
argue for or against the electoral college, or, more precisely, the >"winner-take-all" view of how presidential votes are counted, are
motivated more by their political beliefs than anything else.
The point is that we (the USA) really are a collection of 50 separate >political states, each with its own rules and cultures.
While we
clearly have many things in common, there is no dispute that people in
say, rural Wyoming are very different in they way they view and live
their lives that someone in Chicago or NYC.
The founding Fathers, in
their wisdom, recognized this, even with only 13 states.
The current system, where presidential campaigns are only waged in seven >battleground states where political views on both sides are equally
dominant, may strike you as unfair, but consider the alternative. If >elections were just based on popular votes or some variant thereof,
campaigns would only be done in a few large metropolitan areas in
probably far fewer than seven states.
The real bottom line is that if you want to change the system, get
enough like-minded people to agree with you and do so.
If you are not
able to do that, than maybe people are more satisfied with the current
system than you realize.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.
In misc.legal.moderated, on Mon, 21 Oct 2024 14:39:24 -0700 (PDT),
Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 10:23:50 -0700, Rick wrote:
The real bottom line is that if you want to change the system, get
enough like-minded people to agree with you and do so. If you are not
able to do that, than maybe people are more satisfied with the current
system than you realize.
You could have said the same thing in 1788 in France ...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.
I bet you'll be surprised at who said this.
I find that most people whoTheir views coincide with their political aspirations, but they are not motivated by them. It's wrong in this day and age, it's undemocratic
argue for or against the electoral college, or, more precisely, the
"winner-take-all" view of how presidential votes are counted, are
motivated more by their political beliefs than anything else.
and Democrats know it and say it. Republicans have a big reason to run
from the truth, and so they do.
As to political*beliefs*, I thought we were all supposed to believe in
one man, one vote, the equal protection of the laws. equal
representation, but I see that we don't all do that.
micky wrote:
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution
inevitable.
Pretty sure that be JFK...
Rick <[email protected]> wrote:
micky wrote:
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution
inevitable.
Pretty sure that be JFK...
Right, at least according to several websites. Here's one:
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8333235-those-who-make-peaceful- >revolution-impossible-make-violent-revolution-inevitable
As to political*beliefs*, I thought we were all supposed to believe in
one man, one vote, the equal protection of the laws. equal
representation, but I see that we don't all do that.
The problem with a simple popular vote is that it completely shuts out
states like Montana and Vermont.
But the current system gives
insufficient weight to CA, TX, FL, and NY.
One fairly simple compromise: each state gets 1+N electoral votes
instead of 2+N.
2 (or 1) vote(s) has less influence on the results. Growing the HR
linearly with the US population is probably impractical, but it might be >possible to tie it to the square root of the US population, as some have >suggested.
On 10/22/2024 8:48 AM, micky wrote:
I find that most people whoTheir views coincide with their political aspirations, but they are not
argue for or against the electoral college, or, more precisely, the
"winner-take-all" view of how presidential votes are counted, are
motivated more by their political beliefs than anything else.
motivated by them. It's wrong in this day and age, it's undemocratic
and Democrats know it and say it. Republicans have a big reason to run
from the truth, and so they do.
As to political*beliefs*, I thought we were all supposed to believe in
one man, one vote, the equal protection of the laws. equal
representation, but I see that we don't all do that.
The problem with a simple popular vote is that it completely shuts out
states like Montana and Vermont.
But the current system gives
insufficient weight to CA, TX, FL, and NY.
As with most political problems, there is no one best solution. But if
something really bad happens(*) it might be enough to get Congress to
send an amendment to the states.
It probably won't be purely popular
vote, but it will probably balance things somewhat more toward the large >states.
One fairly simple compromise: each state gets 1+N electoral votes
instead of 2+N.
Another: increase the size of the HR, so that the fixed
2 (or 1) vote(s) has less influence on the results.
Growing the HR
linearly with the US population is probably impractical, but it might be >possible to tie it to the square root of the US population, as some have >suggested.
One thing for certain: it's going to take a disaster before anything
gets done.
(*) e.g., Trump wins in November while losing the popular vote by a huge >margin, puts at least some of his crazy ideas into effect, and we
somehow survive that and elect a Democratic President and Congress in
2028 -- or maybe not until 2032.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact says that once enough states have
approved it that they have have a majority of the electors, the states in the compact will give all their electors to the candidate who gets the most votes nationwide. It's sort of a gimmick but has the advantage that it can work with
the current rules. It's been passed by states with 209 electors and needs 61 more.
Seehttps://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
One fairly simple compromise: each state gets 1+N electoral votes
instead of 2+N.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact says that once enough states have >approved it that they have have a majority of the electors, the states in the >compact will give all their electors to the candidate who gets the most votes >nationwide. It's sort of a gimmick but has the advantage that it can work with >the current rules. It's been passed by states with 209 electors and needs 61 more.
See https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
On 10/21/2024 6:59 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
I think for the US, "winner takes all" seems to cause similar problems to
the UKs First Past The Post system. Where in many cases the winning
candidate can safely ignore the majority of the electorate.
One thing I have noticed in my life, is nature tends to solve problems
where man can't (or won't). Electoral reform being an example. However,
another thing I have noticed is that nature really doesn't care how it
fixes things. Something victims of extreme weather events (or a
succession thereof) will probably agree with.
Electoral systems based on 2 parties fail spectacularly quickly in cases
where the electorate can be polarized around several mutually exclusive
single issues. For the UK Brexit (and now membership of the Council of
Europe) did just that. In the US it seems to be womens rights in general,
plus gun laws, plus immigration. And both sides of the water that is an
engineered and artificial situation.
When the bookies start taking odds on the next US civil war, it will be
an interesting choice who to back. In 1860 it was a no brainer the Union
would prevail. However there doesn't seem to be a modern equivalent.
Although I suspect if you live in Mississippi you may well be on the
losing side.
The most "obvious" systems, e.g., our plurality-wins system, or a ranked-choice system where you eliminate the choice with the fewest
votes, will inevitably produce undesirable results in some situations.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem
However, it is possible to construct systems where "cyclic ties" (think rock-paper-scissors) are rare. Trying to get one implemented in the US
would be difficult because a significant number of current officeholders would lose under those systems.
One state - Alaska - has implemented a ranked voting system. It seems to
be doing what it was designed to do: produce winners who are closer to
the center rather than voters having to choose between two extremists.
I suspect if the roles were reversed and it was the Democrats who
dominated the rural areas and small states like Utah and Wyoming and the Republicans who dominated big cities and large states like NY and
California, you might feel differently. I find that most people who
argue for or against the electoral college, or, more precisely, the "winner-take-all" view of how presidential votes are counted, are
motivated more by their political beliefs than anything else.
The point is that we (the USA) really are a collection of 50 separate political states, each with its own rules and cultures. While we
clearly have many things in common, there is no dispute that people in
say, rural Wyoming are very different in they way they view and live
their lives that someone in Chicago or NYC. The founding Fathers, in
their wisdom, recognized this, even with only 13 states.
The current system, where presidential campaigns are only waged in seven battleground states where political views on both sides are equally
dominant, may strike you as unfair, but consider the alternative. If elections were just based on popular votes or some variant thereof,
campaigns would only be done in a few large metropolitan areas in
probably far fewer than seven states.
The real bottom line is that if you want to change the system, get
enough like-minded people to agree with you and do so. If you are not
able to do that, than maybe people are more satisfied with the current
system than you realize.
On 10/21/2024 1:23 PM, Rick wrote:
I suspect if the roles were reversed and it was the Democrats who
dominated the rural areas and small states like Utah and Wyoming and
the Republicans who dominated big cities and large states like NY and
California, you might feel differently. I find that most people who
argue for or against the electoral college, or, more precisely, the
"winner-take-all" view of how presidential votes are counted, are
motivated more by their political beliefs than anything else.
The point is that we (the USA) really are a collection of 50 separate
political states, each with its own rules and cultures. While we
clearly have many things in common, there is no dispute that people in
say, rural Wyoming are very different in they way they view and live
their lives that someone in Chicago or NYC. The founding Fathers, in
their wisdom, recognized this, even with only 13 states.
The current system, where presidential campaigns are only waged in
seven battleground states where political views on both sides are
equally dominant, may strike you as unfair, but consider the
alternative. If elections were just based on popular votes or some
variant thereof, campaigns would only be done in a few large
metropolitan areas in probably far fewer than seven states.
If the few large areas are where the majority of the people live, then campaigning in those areas is to be expected.
If you could only hold two rallies during the campaign (and no other
events, commercials, press conferences, etc.), would it be better to go
to someplace like NYC or LA or should you go to Anchorage? The electoral college, as it's setup now, may favor Anchorage but a popular vote
system would favor LA or NYC.
Saying "this method would concentrate power in just a few large cities
and thus it's bad" makes no sense as those "few large cities" are where
the people actually live. Why should 10,000 people in Anchorage dictate policies for 10,000,000 people in NYC?
The real bottom line is that if you want to change the system, get
enough like-minded people to agree with you and do so. If you are not
able to do that, than maybe people are more satisfied with the current
system than you realize.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 167:24:15 |
| Calls: | 12,096 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,812 |