So this hypothetical is part General Question, part Election question. I put it here, because why not?
So let’s assume that Romney recovers from what had been a poorly managed campaign to win the popular vote. He also wins the electoral college, or so exit polls would have us believe. Except wait – some members of the electoral college go against their pledge and throw their votes at Obama, and it’s just enough for him to win, coincidentally. So Obama presumably receives a second term, right?
Let’s ignore that this will never, ever happen.
Could this happen, technically? I understand that certain states have laws that punish electors and/or nullify their vote should they go against their pledge. But is there any legal way for a situation like this to arise, as unlikely as it is?
What recourse does Romney have, assuming that Obama is like, “Why, yes please! I will take a second helping, thank you!” instead of stepping down or refusing to accept the votes?
What happens if by January 20th, the whole election is still in question?
EDIT, for more questions: What kind of riots could we expect? How much fun would it be to watch this whole thing unfold? How would Americans react?
I doubt there’d be riots. Too many of us would be tuned to the coverage.
As for faithless electors? They happen. Something less than 200 of them through history as I recall. But they do happen. Checking wikipedia there was one in 2004 and one in 2000.
As for punishments? I presume a state could punish a faithless elector but I don’t think it would change that electors vote. In the scenario outlined Obama would be sworn in as President on Jan 20, 2013.
Um. Presuming the lawsuits were resolved by then. Because that shit would be Bush v Gore x infinity.
Considering that electors are chosen by the state party that represents the winning candidate and are generally made up of high-level party officers, delegates, donors, etc., it’s pretty much close to impossible that enough of them could flip their votes to change the outcome even of a close election.
Riots? Probably about as many as we had in 2000. Which is to say, none.
More likely we’d just change the system after the fact and live with the result for four years. Just so long as there wasn’t corruption involved. If a faithless elector is just following his conscience, that’s annoying, but that’s the system we have. If it turns out he accepted a bribe, all bets are off.
In another country, there would be a constitutional amendment passed to ensure that such an event does not reoccur. From what I have seen on SDMB, many Americans would simply claim that it was the will of the framers.
Slavery was something half the country liked. A federal republic is what this country IS. The states are and will remain sovereign. Which means they will control the elections process. You’d never get 37 states to agree to change that.
Not specifically - it merely states that for the purpose of the census and taxation, those in indentured service would be counted as 3/5 of a person. It’s not quite a mention, given your interpretation…
It is obviously impracticable in the Federal Government of these States to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all. Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be preserved; and, on the present occasion, this difficulty was increased by a difference among the several States as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests. Cite.
The text string “sovereign” does not appear in the Constitution, only in the Letter of Transmittal, quoted above. (This doesn’t settle the matter of course, but it does add a needed reality check. Although the constitution emphasizes, “We the people”, I agree that considerations of state power shouldn’t be ignored.)
Yes; “State’s Rights” is an argument that not even the people making it really believe. It’s just something they trot out to deflect criticism when the state in question is doing something stupid, illegal or irresponsible* that they like. The moment a state does something they don’t like, sudden states have no rights.
Because if it isn’t stupid, illegal or irresponsible, then they can defend it on its own merits.
The states are sovereign however. This is a matter of settled law going back over 200 years. It’s implicit in the design of the electoral system.
All Grant vs. Lee decided(clever, BTW), is that states don’t have a right of secession. At least not if they can’t back it up with force.
A “state” means something very specific. There’s a reason they have that name instead of provinces or administrative districts. THe US was initially set up a lot like the EU is today, then when that proved unworkable the states were united under a stronger federal government. but they have never surrendered their sovereignty and are not likely to ever do so. Control of the elections process is the single most important expression of that sovereignty.