Elections for smaller offices hold runoffs all the time, so why didn’t the state of Florida have one for the presidential election in November, 2000?
Besides the fact that a runoff is not provided for in the constitution? Remember that the president is elected by the Electoral College, NOT the popular vote.
Each state is expected to get its house in order in time to let the Electoral College know what the will of its voters is. Usually this is a matter of days. Recounts, as we all now know, are provided for. But a new election would be costly, time-consuming and overall unfair.
Who would get to vote in the runoff? Only people who voted in the first place, or would every registered voter be allowed? With the entire nation watching do you think voter turnout would be a little bit higher? And if Florida can do it, why not let Nebraska redo it also?
The procedures for electing the President are clearly spelled out, whereas each state, county, city and municipality can devise its own rules for electing the local dogcatcher.
That being said, nothing really stops an Electoral College delegate from voting against the results of the popular vote in his/her state. It’s way too early in the morning for me to try to search for this, but I’m sure that at some point in time a knuckleheaded Electoral College member thought it would be a lark to vote for the Whig instead of the Republican.
/Side Note/ There seems to be a serious disinformation campaign that has taken hold that attempts to paint the United States as a democracy - ie, put everything to a popular vote and let’s go!
In fact this country is a republic, and many of the founding fathers had some very nasty things things to say about a direct democracy - themes like “mob rule” and such.
Sorry, probably more than you wanted, but I got on a roll.
2 reasons basically. First, because the law regarding how presidential electors from Florida are selected do not allow for it, and second because there is realistically no time.
Regarding the first, the constitution provides for the selection of electors, which devolves on the states to determine their own method. Florida is among the many states that are winner take all. And winner is defined as having the most votes, not having a majority. The rules are left to the legislature of the various states, and that is the rule selected by Florida. Secondly, keep in mind that electors must be selected & submitted by December 12th. This is at best a month after the election. To perform a runoff and allow for a candidate to contest the results within this timeframe is, as demonstrated by the events in Florida, not a realistic scenario. The deadline for the selection of the electors was part of the Supreme Court’s motivation to hear & rule on the case, and the same was true regarding the Florida Supreme Court.
An interesting, reasonably unbiased summary of the rules for the selection of electors can be found at:
Also…a runoff requires more than two people to have been in the running.
There were more than two people in the running. Sure Buchanan didn’t get a huge vote (nor the others), but if it pulls the front-runner below 50%, that could be qualification for a runoff, where law allows.
The law, in this case, is the US constitution, and it does not allow. End of debate.
Oh lord, not to open up the Florida can of worms again, but there is no law that states that electors “must” be selected and submitted by this date. The law to which you refer is a “safe harbor” provision which prevents slates of electors submitted by that date from being challenged (I believe by Congress, i.e. refusing to seat the slate of electors from the state in question). Electors may legally be submitted up to the day the electoral college meets and votes. Review any of the numerous post-mortem books for more information (“The Accidental President” was I thought a particularly good one).
Not all the time–sometimes it isn’t allowed by law, in some places. Also, even when it is, sometimes a runoff is unnecessary. For instance, most runoff laws stipulate that someone who garners a majority vote need not face a runoff.
And to top it off, the majority of states don’t even have runoffs for other statewide offices if the leading candidate doesn’t get 50% of the vote.
For example, runoffs are only used in nonpartisan races. They aren’t used in partisan contests.
The nationwide popular vote for president seems to have been collected only since the 1824 election.
If the 50% rule had been in effect, 40% would have required a runoff, including the last three. The names include Lincoln, Truman and Kennedy, Nixon’s first victory and Cleveland,Wilson and Clinton twice each.
Beginning in 1876 there were five straight under 50% winners!