Printable View
That's what I thought. Polling companies in the UK have developed a complex methodology involving questions such as "will you vote" or "on a scale of 1-10 how likely are you to vote" ... as well as "did you vote last time". I'm not surprised the US companies have done the same so Lewk's claim is incorrect.
Incidentally Steely 269-each gets resolved quite simply. If it happened it probably could (amusingly enough) result in Romney-Biden as the House (R) chooses the President and the Senate (D) chooses the Veep.
Assuming no faithless electors. :o It only takes one.
Right. But maybe the polling companies don't have a very good grasp on whom to CALL? Or what "Calling" sampling populations means in an era of internet and social media...not just robo-calls to land line phones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
But if you want to go down that road then there are plausible 270-268 results which could also have a faithless elector. Again it only takes one, its my understanding that if there's a tie there's no reballot its straight to the House/Senate. Also if it were 270-268 and an elector abstained making it 269-268 then its my understanding that neither have a majority (as its 270 to win, not a plaurality) so it again goes to the House/Senate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Can you imagine the uproar though on an election result turning on a faithless elector in this day and age?
It could be one in either direction though. That means it only has a 50% of changing the result if that result is 270-268. Not that I think the election will be this close.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
There might be an uproar, but absolutely nothing could be done to overturn the result (though many states made being a faithless elector into a crime).
The "nothing" is only theoretical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Not really. Once the vote is cast, it's final. Last I checked, our constitution forbids penalties for acts that weren't crimes at the time they were undertaken.
Nothing would happen immediately but the fastest way to abolish the Electoral College would be to have the POTUS elected by a faithless elector. It was an elector crisis that caused the 12th amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
And the constitution is only as strong as 5 justices. It would go to the SC and from there... its anyone's guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The constitution is pretty clear on this one. The EC vote is the one that matters and electors can be faithless. There are no constitutional grounds to reverse the vote.
Except the Constitution doesn't say that the electors have to vote for whichever candidate they're told to vote for. Furthermore, there are numerous precedents of electors being faithless and the results being upheld. I doubt the SC would even agree to hear this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
If the election was decided by a faithless elector they'd have to hear it. Be far too controversial not to. And while the law is clear, it wouldn't be a surprise to have 5 undo all precedent and restore whoever was duly elected upon some once-only technicality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Who those 5 are would of course depend upon the relevant party it benefited.
I know justices are known for stretching the Constitution, but they're not known for completely ignoring it. I can't imagine what kind of a legal argument the candidate harmed by the faithless elector would pursue. An appointed person who's under no obligation to do what he's told refused to do what he was told?
Did any of those decide an election?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I think you live in a pretty strange world of absolutes. One where the laws on the books are the only ones that matter. Life isn't like that - the supreme court has spat on the constitution numerous times.
The electoral college decides POTUS. Depending on the state's rules, delegates aren't required to give all electoral votes in a lump sum, but can proportion them according to popular vote, or by their own conscience. Either way, if the electoral college votes are tied, the Speaker of the House makes the tie-breaking vote. That would mean Boehner (R) could decide POTUS.
Correct me if that's wrong.
Wait, are you calling for an evolutionary interpretation of the Constitution? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
You're partially wrong. The House decides, not the Speaker.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
No, I'm saying its a possible and maybe even likely event if a faithless elector would decide the outcome.
Like I said, the Court might stretch the law, but it's certainly not going to ignore it, especially in a pretty clear instance such as this.
But the Speaker is under no obligation to defer to House majority votes, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I don't get your question. The speaker doesn't get any special say in the process. Forgot to mention another twist: the House votes by state delegation, with each state getting one vote. Would be interesting to see what happens when a delegation is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. Not that it would matter as Republicans have a majority in 30 states.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I'm under the impression that the Speaker can make a declarative judgement, regardless of how the House votes. In other words, it wouldn't matter if the House votes in favor of the popular vote or electoral college vote. The Speaker has ultimate discretion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You're under the wrong impression.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
If so, please share a citation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Google the elections of 1800 and 1824.
Aren't you supposed to be an academic professional on these matters? You're referring me to Google and elections in the 19th century as proper citations? :rolleyes:
Google is less prone to making stuff up than you are.
You could always read the XII amendment.
Loki, someone with your knowledge and status should be able to share a better citation than Google. You grade student papers, right?
Or maybe just maybe I already googled the relevant information, saw that it was correct, and knew that it was easier to understand than the rather formal Constitution.
FYI, I don't do American politics. Haven't taken a single graduate course in it.
Then what's the big deal in sharing a simple citation that would answer my question?