Things like the 3/5 compromise can be defended on the grounds that it was necessary to get it ratified (I personally think the free States should have just gone it alone rather than compromise with slaveholders, but it’s defensible).
Other stuff like the “let’s just assume that by sheer force of will, we can overcome the tendency to form into political parties, unlike any other representative assembly in history” was just goofy. I don’t actually know, but I doubt that any State was prepared to stay out of the Union unless the runner-up of the Presidential election got to be Vice-President.
Part of the whole misapprehension of some factions that seem to follow the Constitution-as-Scripture model is a failure to understand that if the Constitutions sets the general case, and a law defines the specifics, then that does not mean the law is ignorable as long as you invoke the Constitution but rather the law is the way you enforce the Constitution. For instance the whole bit about “as the State legislatures may provide” that applies to selecting electors or qualifying voters or drawing district boundaries. “As the State legislature may provide” includes that the legislature may provide, via a LAW, that it will be bound by popular vote (including a referendum where the people approve a redistricting commission). It does not mean that it is entirely at the moment-by-moment whim of the legislature forever.
The way it looks to me, they sort of assumed that the people doing the deciding and competing for the positions would be upstanding Gentlemen of Quality like themselves, and the rabble would be kept in their place. That is to this day brought to bear in the “republic vs. democracy” trope.
“If Democracts hold majority at next Pres election, what prevents them from rejecting Electors vote and winning rejection based on majority in both houses?”
Their consciences, their respect for the will of the people, and their respect for their vows to uphold and defend the constitution.
Yeah, that’s what I think too. The constitution limits congress to counting the electoral votes. Of course the constitution does not anticipate the possibility of a state’s sending in two sets of EVs and that law fills the gap. But (I don’t recall its exact wording) I don’t think it anticipates the possibility of rejecting outright the EVs a state submits. That is just a fantasy dreamt up by Trump and his enablers.
I can’t help but think you should have Federal oversight of elections to offices at least at State Congress level and above, in the UK we have the Electoral Commission which has wide ranging powers and can bring evidence to criminal prosecutions.
Such prosecutions are handled by the Crown Prosection Service, and obviously there are various sanctions available.
The critical question is who controls the CPS and the Electoral Commission - neither are partisan political appointees although they are formally apporved by the House of Commons - but it is a bi-partisan process and seems to be far more a final seal of approval following an open competition application process, it would be highly unusual for anyone to be rejected following successful application.
This would also need to have an independent Boundary Commission - again these are not partisan appointments.
The UK electoral Commission not only deals with political elections for national and local government but also for matters where national organisations have elections such as trade unions and internal political party elections, and those organisations must pay for this involvement. They also become involved in supervising the running of those elections, ensuring that the various requirements are being met, although they do not do the count itself of run the polling stations or the other physical parts of the election.
I understand the scale of operation in UK elections is a much different one to that in the US, however you do have pan-national law enforcement by various agencies, I cannot see how taking oversight away from states and Electoral Boundaries taken into a Federal Agency
More than that, once you declare that you can use power in any manner you see fit, to the point of overturning free and fair elections, it’s essentially saying that power through elections is unimportant; power by any means and using power in whatever way one sees fit, is instead what matters more. That’s not the kind of power that’s accepted very readily.
Isn’t “rejecting outright the EVs a state submits” something the Republicans actually attempted? It’s my understanding that most of the EV challenges they made were over a single slate of electors, not a pair. Sure you could say they were just trying to slow down the process, but I’ve heard it proposed that that was illegal interference with the election process, and that there’s a statute that says all of those senators have potentially earned prison time.
This is correct. There were no alternative ballots presented. So by statute they had no basis for challenging those other than to claim they were not “regularly given” or “lawfully ascertained”. But they still did so.
If somehow a party had a majority in both houses that were willing to vote that the EV from a state were not “regularly given” or “lawfully ascertained” then I assume it would end up in SCOTUS as to whether the Electoral Count Act’s language regarding Congress challenging Electoral College ballots is Constitutional.
And also to define what “regularly given” and “lawfully ascertained” actually mean. It seems to just mean “not given under duress” and “signed by the governor/SoS as prescribed by state law”.
IANAL, but it seems to me that SCOTUS would likely rule that any Congressional role is extremely limited. The ability to appoint electors is rather explicitly given to the various states.
Unfortunately, I think the President might only be rejected by those who are more interested in the truth than winning. Overturning such an election would not be easy.
All Congress needs to do is gum up the works enough so that no candidate has a majority of Electoral College votes. Then it goes to the House, that votes by State. So I think even in the current House, Trump would win.
Also, all the Republicans needed was for the Secretaries of State of Georgia and Pennsylvania and one other state to just decline to endorse a slate.
That would not have worked, going by the Constitution. Had PA and GA not sent electoral votes at all, plus, say, Wisconsin, Biden would have had 260 electoral votes to Trump’s 230. That means Biden wins. The Constitution doesn’t say you need 270 votes - of course it doesn’t, they don’t change the magic number every time a new state is admitted. It says you need “a majority of the whole number of electors appointed.” If only 490 electors are appointed, the magic number is 246.
I stand corrected. It is indeed the majority of electors appointed, so a state that appoints no electors is eliminated from consideration.
However, my previous point remains valid. If States appoint electors and Congress can’t agree enough to give 270 to one candidate, it goes to the House.
I’m probably repeating a lot of what is said about, but the real answer is, The Constitution. Granted that 147 Republican legislators did not feel bound by the constitution, I doubt you will find many Dems who feel that way. And if they did, the republic is finished.
This is the technical point that matters. If Congress were to reject the overall EC result, the House vote is one vote for each state delegation. The Republicans have the sole Rep for a number of states, like Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas, and slight majorities in a few other states, but a slight majority is all it takes to color a state’s single vote. California, New York Illinois and other big states can establish the House majority with their abundance of blue districts, but when they each get a single vote for President, those numbers become insignificant.
I just want to say that when NJ went all Democrat (house, senate, governor) a few years ago, one of the Democratic senators or house members introduced a bill to gerrymander the state the way many Republican-led states are, and he was quickly shot down. I called my state rep and state senator to make sure they were going to vote it down and both were already planning on it.
So, you just don’t really have the kind of both-sides that this thread contemplates, at least not with the current incarnations of the two parties.
No. Only if there was a tie. They cant just unilaterally “reject” the results of a democratic election. The Supreme court would laugh that out of the court.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
There is NOTHING in the Constitution about the Veep just rejecting the votes or even the Congress.