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.
Printable View
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?
You want a citation for a negative. The Speaker has no special voting powers. None whatsoever, in any context. The only relevance the position holds beyond the purely internal rules of order the House chooses to operate under is that the Speaker has a defined place in the government's line of succession.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I know that, but I think the idea is that people would be very unhappy about an election decided that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
That one's easy and has precedent. If the Reps of a State in the House split evenly then that state casts no vote towards getting a majority of States. Again like the Electoral College you need an absolute majority (not plurality) so that harms both candidates chances as the bar remains 26 states not 25.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Unlike the Electoral College the House votes repeatedly until it gets a result. I believe the record is 36 rounds of votes being required until a decision was made.
GGT he's given a citation. It doesn't matter though as its blocks of States that matter not individual Reps and certainly not one Rep alone.
I don't pretend to be so wise as to be able to predict this. All I have been able to accurately predict is stumping for Obama by various corners of the coastal media elite.
Make your prediction. Don't be a weenie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I suppose. It's far from clear that every Congressman would vote along party lines though. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Which leads to same point as made about faithless electors. It means non-even could equally cause an even result too. Surely in this day and age if anyone (in the first round at least) voted against their party they'd be expelled from the party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
For thirty years, I have plotted against the Party
I am sick, of mind and body
We have a candidate-oriented system here. Party expulsions are incredibly rare (and usually happen for criminal behavior) and are generally not a credibly deterrent. People usually get threatened with bad committee assignments, no chairmanships, and no votes on their pork projects. Even then, someone from say the deep south might be willing to ignore those incentives because of how unpopular Obama is down there.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Well, electors are elected to cast their vote for a candidate, whereas a congressman is elected to represent his constituency. I would imagine some voting for what their constituency wants rather than his party.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The Meso-Americans did their own research over a millennia ago and predicted a Romney win in 2012, closely followed by the end of the world.
I can not imagine the DNC or any Democratic caucus ever forgiving a (D) Congressman voting to elect a (R) President. Especially given these are not secret ballots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
They voted for other (D)s not (R)s.
Plus Speaker is very different to POTUS.
They could very easily pull the same stunt (i.e. abstain). There are quite a few Democratic candidates in the South who refuse to say anything about Obama.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
These are starting to align a little better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
538 has Obama at 307.2 and Romney at 230.8 and princeton has Obama at 305 and Romney at 233.
and before Loki has another hissy fit, I'm going to give Romney Ohio, Florida, and Virginia for shits and giggles, but give the other Dem leaning battleground states to Obama. So 272 to 266.
290 (Obama gets Colorado, Ohio, NH, Wisconsin, Nevada. Loses Florida, Virginia.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
+1.5% popular vote margin
52 Senators
194 Reps (kinda a guess, I know it'll be somewhere in that ballpark but I haven't looked at enough of the close races to really know.)
Since certain people here don't seem to trust polls, I figured I'd put the predictions of the of the main poll aggregators, 538 and RCP.
538:
Colorado: Obama 2.7%
Florida: Obama 0.2%
Iowa: Obama 3.4%
New Hampshire: Obama 3.7%
North Carolina: Romney 1.6%
Ohio: Obama 3.2%
Virginia: Obama 2.2%
Nevada: Obama 4.7%
RCP:
Colorado: Obama 1.5%
Florida: Romney 1.5%
Iowa: Obama 2.4%
New Hampshire: Obama 2.0%
North Carolina: Romney 3.0%
Ohio: Obama 2.9%
Virginia: Obama 0.3%
Nevada: Obama 2.8%
There are some ~1% differences between the two sources, but they predict the same outcome in each state. We'll see who's better (or if they both suck).
For those expecting Romney to vote, note that Romney has to win almost every state where he's down by 2-3%.
Edit: 538 made some last-second changes (all in the direction of Obama).
Holy Crap, I can't believe someone's letting you maniacs vote tomorrow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
:haha:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki