General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat happens if a state doesn't select electors and therefore doesn't submit any E.C. votes?
The Constitution says:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...
What if they don't? Does the EC voting proceed as if those states don't exist? Or, could one or more states throw sand in the gears by claiming they had to delay their elections?
Could this end up in the SCOTUS?
roamer65
(36,739 posts)A monument to the dysfunction called the Electoral College.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1876_United_States_presidential_election
Pay particular to the section Colorado.
Yes, state legislatures can appoint a slate of electors, even without a popular vote.
Girard442
(6,059 posts)roamer65
(36,739 posts)I am wondering if this is the game plan for letting the pandemic go unfettered.
Some states may declare the voting too dangerous and try to cancel it and appoint the electors. With a majority of state legislatures controlled by Repukes, guess where this may be headed.
qazplm135
(7,447 posts)we don't have enough to win. If we do, who cares. If we don't, why would they? If it's a tie, why would they?
Girard442
(6,059 posts)qazplm135
(7,447 posts)IF you don't have it, then you either lose, tie, or it goes to Congress.
dumbcat
(2,120 posts)I thought it was the majority of the votes of the electors.
"The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed"
qazplm135
(7,447 posts)you need 270, because that's a majority.
If you don't have 270 because someone doesn't vote, or votes for someone else, then you either lost, or it goes to the House.
The parties appoint the electors in all but ten states to begin with.
So this crazy hypo could only have a chance of happening in 10 states, and in 9 of those ten states, it's still part of the party apparatus.
The only state that has the governor pick is Florida.
So Biden would have to be over 270 with Florida, under without it, AND the Gov would have to refuse to certify a Biden win. I don't see how that happens in a way that wouldn't go to the courts and I don't think that scenario turns out like Bush v Gore because it simply opens up a Gov to completely ignore an election result and pretty sure that's not going to fly.
People need to stop thinking of creative ways to lose and get back to focusing on winning.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Majority means majority. If only 99 electors vote, you win with 50. Thats a majority.
The total number of electors who appear to vote in the electoral college is not defined in the Constitution.
-Laelth
It's defined by the language, the number is an outgrowth of that, and the SC already ruled that you have to vote the way your state voted as an elector and you can be replaced.
So there are no longer going to be faithless electors, there aren't going to be delayed elections, governors are not going to somehow strategically withhold results.
It's going to be 270 until we add or subtract states.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)The issue, here, is what happens if one or more states dont send any electors at all (due to cancelled or severely compromised elections).
Am I missing the point of this discussion?
-Laelth
I give up. People want to create ridiculous things to be afraid of, be my guest.
Bettie
(15,998 posts)it could end up in the House where each state has one vote.
All they need is some assholes in a handful red states who refuse to certify the electors.
mackdaddy
(1,520 posts)Unfortunately, each state gets only 1 vote there. More states right now are controlled by the Republicans, and even if there were overwhelming votes for Biden they could constitutionally elect Trump if this were to happen. This has been talked about on the Thom Hartmann show as part of the 12th amendment, and kind of the ultimate dirty trick the Repubs could pull.
I would say that it could trigger an actual civil war if they pulled this, but hey Trump.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)The new Congress elected in November and sworn in in January will hold the vote.
mackdaddy
(1,520 posts)Still it depends too much on how many Repub controlled state legislative delegations are left after this election.
Another reason to make sure everyone comes out to vote every last one of the bastards out from President to township trustee.
Captain Zero
(6,714 posts)The parties pick the people who will be electors if their candidate wins. Usually pretty well placed party loyalists. Why do you imagine those electors would be a no show when the EC meets ?
Girard442
(6,059 posts)qazplm135
(7,447 posts)that's not going to happen.
Response to Girard442 (Original post)
Girard442 This message was self-deleted by its author.
sarisataka
(18,220 posts)Essentially it will be treated as if the state doesn't exist.
Girard442
(6,059 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)That should answer most of your questions. 9 states did not send electors to the electoral college. Those states simply werent counted, and the election proceeded normally. Abraham Lincoln won a second term.
As to the SCOTUS, yes. Any given lawsuit can or may go to the SCOTUS for adjudication, and thats because people, corporations, and states always have the right to sue. What the SCOTUS might do with the kind of case you imagine is an entirely different question. I have no idea.
-Laelth
qazplm135
(7,447 posts)212 to 12. Elections were held in the Union-occupied military districts in the states of Louisiana and Tennessee, but no electoral votes were counted from them. The other "9 states" were at the time not part of the US so of course they didn't send electors.
I don't really think that's going to be the ironclad answer you assert.
The whole point of the recent SC case was also to say that electors have no discretion, they can't refuse to vote for the person who won their state, and they can be replaced.
Hekate
(90,196 posts)Which would be pretty counter-productive
Orangepeel
(13,933 posts)SCOTUS stopped the recount, so it was never an issue, but they absolutely would have.
If a state with a republican legislature has a close election and "irregularities" are claimed, I wouldn't be shocked if they went through with it.
So, it can't be close