Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Thekaspervote

(35,810 posts)
17. Reading a little further here is what the constitution does say
Fri Jan 29, 2021, 09:22 PM
Jan 2021

But Republicans cannot have their cake and eat it too. They cannot plausibly argue that the Twelfth Amendment’s silences override the Electoral Count Act while ignoring the Amendment’s plain language. If neither slate of Pennsylvania’s electors is recognized, Biden’s 268 votes would fall short of a majority of the 538 total Electoral votes theoretically available. However, the Twelfth Amendment does not say anything about those votes. Instead, it says that “[t]he person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed” (emphasis added).
We have italicized that last word—appointed—to emphasize that the Constitution does not say that a candidate must win a majority of the potential number of theoretically eligible electors who might have been appointed. He or she must win only a majority of the electors who were actually appointed. In the scenario in which the Electoral Count Act is set aside so that Pennsylvania’s votes do not count, its 20 votes are subtracted from both the numerator and the denominator. Now Biden’s (assumed) 268 votes would be a majority of the 518 votes cast by the “whole number of electors appointed.” Biden would win in the Electoral College, meaning that the decision would not go to the House.
https://verdict.justia.com/2020/09/30/no-republicans-cannot-throw-the-presidential-election-into-the-house-so-that-trump-wins

And this from a 7/2020 SCOTUS decision regarding electors

And second, the Court’s decision reinforces the validity of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Under National Popular Vote, states that combine for at least 270 electoral votes agree to award their electors to the presidential candidate who wins the most individual votes across the nation. (Fifteen states and the District of Columbia, totaling 196 electoral votes, have already passed the measure.)

In the 18 states currently without faithless elector laws, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would operate in a manner identical to the system that they have been using for over 200 years. In these states (which currently use the state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes), the presidential electors are chosen by the political party

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/07/14/supreme-courts-faithless-electors-decision-validates-case-for-the-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Bolicks to that.... OnDoutside Jan 2021 #1
They are fascists, they don't care about democracy beyond its ability to give legitimacy to leaders DSandra Jan 2021 #2
So they want to go back to Autocracy, did they see the mob on Jan 6... ace3csusm Jan 2021 #13
Why hold elections at all? Goodheart Jan 2021 #3
That is what they want. Why even pretend any more. Irish_Dem Jan 2021 #10
2020 may have been the last fair election. dem4decades Jan 2021 #4
I think it's the start. OAITW r.2.0 Jan 2021 #11
Not if we keep fighting. Turin_C3PO Jan 2021 #18
I agree but they control the shit States. dem4decades Jan 2021 #19
Sounds like Insurrection at the State level. OAITW r.2.0 Jan 2021 #5
How can this possibly be legal??? EndlessWire Jan 2021 #6
Legal schmeegal.... SergeStorms Jan 2021 #8
The Constitution seys the States choose the electoral college voters... targetpractice Jan 2021 #9
This is the best argument EndlessWire Jan 2021 #12
Agree, even the idiot Tom Cotton talked about this radius777 Jan 2021 #24
electors are chosen by each party in Federal elections not by state legislators Thekaspervote Jan 2021 #14
Thank you for that correction... But... targetpractice Jan 2021 #16
Reading a little further here is what the constitution does say Thekaspervote Jan 2021 #17
Thank you for taking the time, Thekaspervote... targetpractice Jan 2021 #20
Her husband told her it's legal dalton99a Jan 2021 #23
They complain about the legitimacy of elections... SergeStorms Jan 2021 #7
This is going no where. The federal courts or SCOTUS will slam it down Thekaspervote Jan 2021 #15
I agree rockfordfile Jan 2021 #21
The Province of Michigan is looking better every day. roamer65 Jan 2021 #22
Won't be legal. How winners are determined must be clear beforehand, radius777 Jan 2021 #25
Typical. Change the rules when you don't win In It to Win It Jan 2021 #26
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»AZ GOP Lawmaker Introduce...»Reply #17