If Bernie decides to change his tone or there is a mass-grass-roots campaign to write-in Sanders for President and Elizabeth Warren as VP, what would the outcome be? Pres. Trump? Any Sanders EVs? Election by the House? And let’s say he won EVs? How would the electors be determined?
The result would be President Trump.
Are you talking about the DNC suddenly nominating Bernie and supporting him through November? Or some fringe party made up of the small slice of America that fully believes writing in this ticket is going to make it happen, and that it would be a good thing?
Because the results are widely divergent. I think the Democratic party could’ve nominated almost anyone besides Hillary and won this election with their eyes closed. But a fringe third party will never win, regardless of the grassroots support.
Unless Bernie actively supported such a candidacy and filed paperwork, he certainly couldn’t win, even if enough people supported such a ticket. According to this map on Ballotpedia, only 7 states count write-in votes for president without the candidate filing in advance. They have just 58 electoral votes between them (maybe 61, I can’t tell what color DC is). (It’d be interesting to see how those 7 states would handle it, since there would be no electors elected. Maybe there’s a provision for them to be appointed, or maybe they just haven’t thought it through because it’s never actually going to happen.)
So, I’ll go with President Trump being the outcome.
Give it up, man. Hillary and Donald are the nominees. It’s final. It’s over. It’s done. It’s decided. There is nothing you can do about it. Zip. Bupkis. Nada.
But as for this bit - the electors for each state are awarded according to each state’s rules about apportioning their electors. It doesn’t matter if the winner of the state comes from one of the two major parties. Whoever wins the state’s popular vote gets the state’s electors according to that state’s rules. I believe most states are winner takes all, but there are few oddballs, iirc.
Now, most states have laws forcing an elector to vote for the state’s winner, but in actual practice, Electors are free to vote their concsience (while understanding that there may be penalties for their little act of free will). So theoretically, even if one candidate wins the popular vote, the Electors could all decide to give their Electoral Vote to Bernie Sanders.
No. No that’s not going to happen. It’s over, man. It’s over.
Face it, Bernie lost. And that’s a good thing.
When voting for President, one is actually voting for a slate of electors. Each major party (and most minor parties) select their candidates for elector, and then the election decides which slate gets to be part of the Electoral College. The state does not have a set pool of electors who are bound by the vote; they are chosen by the vote. (And they are generally party politicians who can be trusted to vote the way they’re supposed to. Generally.)
How electors would be selected after the fact for a victory by a write-in candidate is a good question, but it’s unanswerable. I can’t imagine that we’ll ever need to know the answer.
Bingo, IF the OPs scenario happened which has 0% chance of it.
Sarah Silverman nailed it.
If you look at the primary campaign, Hillary won most of the primaries and Bernie won most of the caucases. A relatively small but committed group of voters has much more impact in a caucas than a primary. Plus, Bernie winning states included places like Wyoming, Idaho, North Dakota and Alaska, where any Democrat has a slim chance of winning the general election.
Of course it’s possible that a Bernie movement in places like Minnesota, Indiana, Minnesota, Michigan, Oregon and Washington will be enough to tilt those states Republican, which would very likely be enough for President Trump.
Trust me, neither Oregon nor Washington will go Trump. No chance in hell.
Who are you talking to? Certainly not me because I have never been a Bernie supporter. I would think my other posts would make that obvious.
While Indiana did quite surprisingly go Obama in 2008, I suspect that may have been because the knuckle-draggers around here hate women in power even more than they hate uppity blacks, and McCain was pretty damn old-- old enough to make people worry about a Palin presidency.
Indiana is a red state. I think Sanders won the vote here thanks to democrat crossover voters like me, who were very concerned about some state level races, and knew Clinton didn’t need to win Indiana. Unfortunately, many of us misread the polls at the time, and thought Trump would be easier for Clinton to beat than Cruz. But a lot of those votes that Trump got in Indiana were by people who do not intend to vote for him in the general-- we’re going to vote for Clinton. However, Trump will pick up virtually all the Republican votes here, and probably quite a lot of the Libertarian ones as well, because they think he will deregulate businesses. What we didn’t expect was how much fundamentalist Christians would love Trump. We thought they’d stay home in droves. Actually, Pence as VP will hurt Trump in Indiana more than anything, but he will still win the state. It’s a red state.
In 2008, a lot of the numerous college students who live here, but maintain “home” addresses at their parents’ in other states, and typically don’t vote, or in a presidential, vote absentee, registered in Indiana to help swing the state, and help Obama win it (and there was dancing in the streets, I tell you). I don’t foresee anything similar this November.
The result would be the same as its been since the beginning; President Clinton the Second.
I … am not sure about this. Let me quote (from Wiki).
As that quote states, the process for choosing Electors is described in Article 2 Clause 2 of the Constitution, which can be read here:
So it’s definitely the States who appoint the Electors, not the Parties (although the Parties are free to suggest their own people for Electors.)
If a third party Party won - if for example, a write-in candidate won - then the State Legislature would need to appoint an Elector panel to represent the will of the State’s voters. There might be a subsequent special election of voters, or the State Legislator may just appoint a panel. And again, whatever candidate wins is free to suggest people as Electors, but ultimately it’s the State that appoints them.
The parties have to suggest their own people. That’s how the system works now. In Ohio, for example, the Democratic Party will nominate 18 candidates for elector, as will the Republican Party, and also all the minor parties and whatever fruitcakes put themselves up as write-in candidates. Then, in November, the people of the state will elect one slate to go to Columbus and vote for president and vice president, although the ballot will just name the ticket they’ve pledged to vote for (with some fine print about it actually being the slate of electors you’re voting for).
Why do people think that Warren would be a good candidate for VP? She is (currently) a one-issue pol with no executive experience, questionable judgement, and almost no national political exposure. On a straight resume comparison Sarah Palin was a better VP candidate.
In ten years she might be a viable pick but not now.
In ten years she’ll be 77, so it’s a couple of terms as Senator for her and then she’s off to retirement.
If Sanders/Warren was a Green Party ticket they’d compete pretty well given the weakness of the major party candidates. If Johnson/Weld and Stein/who? can pull down 15-20% combined, I imagine Sanders/Warren could get 30%.