You are trying to use an English-Ukrainian dictionary to square the circle, Liberal. The debate is over how we should elect the president of the United States – not over whether we should have a president, or a United States, or a government.
I’d say that leaves it an open question, then – and the smart money would be on the position that the “faithless elector” problem is inherent in the EC system.
I would feel just as screwed as I do now – because we still would have a president who was not the choice of the majority of the people.
Election by the house is simply majority, yes? I thought it was 2/3rds, for some reason.
You’re right duality, it appeas that it requires not only the most electoral votes, but more then 269 to win the election, otherwise the decision is thrown to the House. Of course this then raises the possibility that the WV elector could be faithless, the final electoral tally is 269-268-1 and all hell breaks loose as Kerry wins the electoral vote, the popular vote and still doesnt become president. Bush may then need to retreat from Iraq simply to find the necessary troops to insure his safe passage from the inagural address to the White House !!!
The relevant passage:
Interestingly, if we ever have a third party capable of capturing even a few electoral votes, we will see this happen much more often as a three way split means no one is garunteed more then 269. I often hear that the founders did not write the two party system into the constitution, but this makes me wonder.
Why would that be, since the only opinion we have available from the SCotUS is that:
Is there any precedent that the court would lean the other way if pressed further?
And until the state laws are challenged, they remain the law within those states.
“Jefferson & Co.”? Nitpick: Jefferson was not at the Constitutional Convention (he was in France at the time) and did not even feel comfortable with the Constitution it drafted.
Yup. I hope that’s not a surprise to anyone.
Yes, but the vote is taken by state, not by representative. So you’d need to get the majority of reps from 26 states to win. Bush has that pretty much secured if it came to that.
How so? Election of vice-president in the case of an electoral tie goes to the Senate for a straight vote. The Senate is currently 51-48-1 in favor of the Republicans, with a Zell Miller hiding in the left aisle with a Cheney vote in his pocket. And even if it takes place with the new Class III senators, there aren’t any R seats that look to be replaced (sure, the Fitz seat from IL, but the Zell Miller seat will certainly go red in Georgia). Maybe the Colorado seat - but a tie at the most is forseeable.
Unless there’s a race I’m overlooking, that appears very unlikely.
Richie Robb is not a faithless voter in the strictest sense: 8 weeks before the election, he’s told the voters of WV how he intends to cast his vote. So those who like his position can vote for him and not the other WV Republican candidates, and those who want to support Bush can vote for those others and not for Robb.
So two questions:
(1) How easy is it to split your vote for presidential electors?
(2) Do you have to vote for all the positions up for election, i.e. in WV’s case, for 5 candidates, or can you vote for fewer?
Richie Robb has achieved his objective…a newspaper headline and five minutes of fame. He’ll now be summarily dismissed.
It completely depends by state. For all we know, the West Virginia GOP could have selected 5 EC voters during the primary, and assigned them districts. I have no idea where you would dig up a particular state’s electoral college procedure, but I don’t think we can assume there’s a long list of Republican electors to choose from. In fact, I’d tend to assume the opposite - that there are only 5.
(1) It’s impossible; and (2) Yes, you automatically vote for the entire slate.
In an earlier era in American history, most states listed the names of the individual electors on the ballot, and you could decline to vote for one or more by crossing off his or her name or failing to put a check mark by it. In very close elections, this would sometimes result in a state electing a split slate of electors. This is no longer possible in any of the 50 states. In all cases, your vote for the presidential candidate automatically casts a vote for the entire slate of electors. (In Maine and Nebraska, your vote for the presidential candidate automatically casts a vote for your district elector and for two statewide electors.)
My guess is that Robb won’t get cute with his vote if it will swing the election result. He’ll only pull his protest if one side or the other has it in the bag.
Haj
I don’t get what problem so many of you have with the vote going to the House. Afterall, the legislative branch choosing our executive is no different than what we see in the UK, and European Parliamentary systems are touted by many Americans (mostly for reasons no better than “It’s different, and it’s European!”) as being superior to the American system.
The debate? I was answering your direct question. You asked me to expand my statement and provide the general principle. I did. Perhaps you should refrain from jerking people around.
Yes, but simple majority of states – the single representative from Wyoming and the one from Delaware cast their votes normally, but the skatey-eight representatives from Texas and from California poll the state delegation and then cast one vote, presumably through their senior member as spokesman, for the choice of the majority in that state delegation.
This has already happened:
"Although a galaxy of famous Republican speakers, and even Mark Twain, stumped for Hayes, he expected the Democrats to win. When the first returns seemed to confirm this, Hayes went to bed, believing he had lost. But in New York, Republican National Chairman Zachariah Chandler, aware of a loophole, wired leaders to stand firm: “Hayes has 185 votes and is elected.” The popular vote apparently was 4,300,000 for Tilden to 4,036,000 for Hayes. Hayes’s election depended upon contested electoral votes in Louisiana, South Carolina, and Florida. If all the disputed electoral votes went to Hayes, he would win; a single one would elect Tilden.
Months of uncertainty followed. In January 1877 Congress established an Electoral Commission to decide the dispute. The commission, made up of eight Republicans and seven Democrats, determined all the contests in favor of Hayes by eight to seven. The final electoral vote: 185 to 184."
The executive and legislative branches are supposed to act as checks on each other, and that can’t happen if one appoints the other. Voters in parliamentary systems don’t expect the PM to act as a check on Parliament, but I do expect the President to act as a check on Congress.