'2 for 1' voting....could it work?

[classical liberal]

If you go by the original Constitutional method of EC voting, the plan is correct.  However, the Justice Scalia would have to decide whether he wanted to support his stated support of strict-constructionism or his political leanings towards favoring his friend and his other friend's son.  From a strict constructionist viewpoint, the electors are the people who are elected during the Presidential election by the people so the votes for those electors should count towards them regardless of a party.  Just as some senatorial candidates have received votes from L, C, Ref, and Independent party sections of the ballot.

[classical liberal]

There hasn't been an amendment that changes the election of electors.  States have instituted popular vote for a candidate to choose electors.  The state legislatures do still choose electors, only their chosing method has been corrupted by 200 years of political parties.

[classical liberal]

the ballot actually says in small letters "Electors for . . . "
so if the "Electors for . . . " Kerry are the same as the "Electors for . . . " Nader, then that slate of electors wins.

do you have pics of a ballot?

[classical liberal]

Hyopthetically, even if Nader did do this, I don't think it would work the way the article writer suggests.

Lets suppose a state ends up with:
Bush 48%
Kerry 47%
Nader 3%
Other 2%

In this situation, I think Bush ends up being the winner, even if Kerry and Nader had the same slate of electors and their combined total ends up winning.  Kerry and Nader were on the ballot seperately, so their votes must be tallied as seperate from each other.

I see a court case looming if Dems tried to say the Kerry slate of electors won, in this hypothetical.

If that happens adn somehow Kerry ends up winning, it would spell the end of the EC.  And rightfully so.

No, if Bush has a plurality but Nader electors and Kerry electors are the same slate of people, then by the EC system the Kerry/Nader Elctors win the Elector nominations that all the states now masquerade as presidential elections.  It would signify a return towards the original consensus as the the process by which we choose our president.

[classical liberal]

I found a ballot picture:



By what the ballot says, if the electors are the same for Kerry and Nader then the "votes for group" will count towards the same group total, giving Kerry's electors the state's votes in the electoral college.

[classical liberal]

There's a problem with the plan though.  It's really the state legislatures that choose Electors.  Even if the popular vote gave a plurality or majority to the Kerry/Nader electors, the state legislatures could choose to go with the candidate of their choice regardless.  This type of plan would probably break the agreement of the 50 legislatures to select the electors that win the popular vote; states would once again go to the winners in the Legislature regardless of the popular vote.

What party controls each legislature?  I know MD is Dem and VA is GOP.

[classical liberal]

That law must dictate that the eletors vote for the candidate whose electors received the most votes, since candidates themselves can not receive any votes and 0-0-0-0-0-0-0 give the EV's to noone.  Therefore the electors would actually be bound by that law to vote for Kerry if the Kerry/Nader electors actually receive more popular votes.

[classical liberal]

1/4 of Nader' support comes off of Bush in most polls, so it may not be so much to that degree.

[classical liberal]

Are you sure that the selection process is a law?  I was under the impression that it was a general consensus to vote unanimously with the popular vote.  If not then I can't find any problems with the plan.