Wrong. From [URL=“https://history.house.gov/Institution/Electoral-College/Electoral-College/”]history.house.gov](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21603110&postcount=62)
I agree. Legislatures can set up whatever kind of election procedures they want before an election. But I don’t think they can enact a law that overturns an election that’s already happened.
If this got to SCOTUS, I don’t see how they wouldn’t rule in Trump’s favor. They’d just default to “did Trump win the Electoral College according to how it should be done? Yes? Then case over.”
I hope you’re right about that. In another thread we recently had a poster suggest that adherence to SCOTUS decisions was voluntary and that blue states might just start ignoring them.
Link, please?
Thanks for acknowledging this, BTW. It’s simply short-hand, not intended in any sort of derogatory fashion. And on a more general note, thanks for your recent efforts to improve the tenor of discussion here.
From Title 3, Section 15 of the United States Code:
“But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted.”
I am assuming that “the executive of the State” is the governor of that state. If a Democratic governor “certifies” that the Democrat gets the electoral votes, then the Democrat gets them.
Thanks! I’m doing it for selfish reasons because I really like this place and want to keep it worth visiting. Thank you for doing the same!
Thank you-That idea is crazy and/or ignorant, of course. No matter what side you’re on that just isn’t right.
I agree, and I was heartened that it got fairly substantial push-back from multiple posters of various political persuasions (I think) right in that thread.
Aren’t the electors certified before the vote? I believe that this clause is saying that if the two chambers can’t agree, then the votes of the original, certified electors are used.
When I first read that post I only skimmed it. The impression I had then was the poster was basically saying:
“If SCOTUS makes abortion illegal there would still be some blue states that would “allow” abortions because women won’t stop needing them just because it’s illegal so better to have competent doctor’s and proper facilities than back-alley stuff.”
I thought he/she was implying that some states would “look the other way” when abortions were performed under those circumstances. But then I re-read it and saw that he/she wrote:
Which is wrong on the face of it because abortion would no longer be legal, and:
I suppose it’s true the Justices wont try to physically stop you if you violate their rulings, but other sectors of the U.S. government might be a bit less passive.
I wish. The democrats are disorganized pussies who are terrified of republicans and rich people being mean to them. They’ll probably roll over and accept it.
In between voter suppression efforts and questionable results in the machines, she has a point.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/12/georgia-voting-states-elections-1162134
Then competing slates of electors get to have their votes counted at a joint session of Congress presided over by Mike Pence.
If ABC/CBS/NBC/AP/CNN project, after the election, that Trump lost, the only sure prediction is that DJT won’t accept the result as fair. He could do anything from order the Secret Service to defend the White House gates, to flee the country to live the rest of his life in one of his overseas golf properties.
Whatever he does, it won’t be be what a President who respects democratic norms does.
Pussies or not, people hold grudges. Remember how long Southerners held a grudge against Republicans* after the disagreement over Reconstruction.
- Republicans aka, Reps, Pubbies, GOP, Rs, elephant party, etc. All of which I use randomly, none of which I try to imply any different tone to than any other.
Would all you people, Dems, Demonrats, Reps, Republicans, etc., please read https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2019/Pres/Maps/May16.html#item-7. The Votemaster is generally pretty level-headed and if he thinks it possible, it is possible. Note that, as he explains that the legislature could simply ignore the vote and choose the elector and apparently the governor has no role. I would be on surer ground had the item been signed by (Z), a historian.
And my question is how would the public, especially Republicans react to such a scenario? The party seems to have gone thoroughly the “end justifies the means”, but have their voters. Is it conceivable that something like this would finally lead to the demise of the electoral college?
Great link. I was particularly intrigued by the author’s scenario whereby we could have a President Trump but Democratic vice president (i.e., Stacey Abrams.) If that happened, we can expect to see a spate of assassination attempts on the president’s life like never before seen. (Ditto if we had a Democratic president but Republican veep.)
I agree that this is wrong but I find myself thinking it just as likely red states ignore a SCOTUS ruling. We already have a President and AG who have taken the position they can ignore the oversight authority of Congress and subpoenas they find to be inconvenient. It isn’t hard to imagine them ignoring any ruling by SCOTUS on this matter that doesn’t go their way. The states would simply be taking their cue from the President.
And it is highly unlikely the Court will back the POTUS on all of the legal challenges we will see soon, no matter how stacked my fellow Democrats think the Court is at present. I suspect Trump & Co. are likely to win on some issues and lose on others. I am curious to see how they will react to the ones they lose.