2016 electoral college voting **live commentary thread**

[jimrtex]

New Hampshire live

[jimrtex]

The stream quality on NH is hilarious; they sound as if they've had 20 pints.

I had a phone call so missed most of the ceremony, but I liked the history presented by the SOS.

New Hampshire has had four electoral votes since 1884.

In the first election in 1788 they didn't know how to hold an election, so they just used special election and had the sheriffs of each county tell the towns to hold an election. The votes were quite scattered, and state law required a majority for election. So they called a special session of the legislature, which after a 10-day deadlock finally agreed to choose the five electors from among the Top 10. Histories present this as being pre-arranged (i.e. popular vote, but if no majority it would be decided by the legislature; but it was pretty much ad hoc).

One of the electors really is Dudley Dudley or Dudley, Dudley.

[jimrtex]

Links to Live Stream (34 states)

[jimrtex]

An Ohio elector quit at the last moment, and was just replaced.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/12/19/presidential-elector-from-stark-county-resigns.html

State Rep. Christina Hagan, R-Marlboro Township, indicated that she will resign as a presidential elector after two residents over the weekend filed an emergency lawsuit alleging that the Ohio Constitution prohibits a state legislator from serving as a presidential elector.

Hagan did give a speech, and introduce the introducer of the keynote speaker.

[jimrtex]

FAITHLESS ELECTOR IN MINNESOTA, PREVENTED BY MINNESOTA LAW.

Was he trying to vote for John Ewards again?

Does anyone know what happened in 2004 and who did he vote for VP?

In 2004, voting in Minnesota was by secret ballot. One elector apparently got confused and marked both ballots for Edwards.

Since then, Minnesota has enacted the model faithless elector act which is quite elaborate.

(1) Electors must pledge to vote for their party's presidential candidate;
(2) The Certificate of Ascertainment from the governor notes that vacancies might occur prior to the end of the meeting;
(3) A vote is not considered "cast" until the Secretary of State examines it and determines that the vote is consistent with the pledge.
(4) If an elector refuses to present a ballot, presents an unmarked ballot, or presents a ballot marked in violation of the elector's pledge, his position is deemed vacant.
(5) Vacancies are filled by an elaborate procedure:
    (a) Each elector has an alternate (Minnesota parties name 10 electors and 10 alternates).
    (b) If the alternate is not available, then one is chosen by lot from among the other alternates.
    (c) If no alternates are available, then other electors choose someone who is available, and willing
          to take the pledge and then vote.
    (c.i) If it is a tie vote, the replacement is chosen by lot.
    (d) If there are no electors, the SOS can appoint 1, who then begins the process of filling the vacancies.

[jimrtex]

Six faithless electors so far. The first time we've got more than one since 1960, I believe (Kennedy won Alabama, but six of them voted Byrd. Mississippi was actually carried by an unpledged slot).

All the Byrd votes were from unpledged electors - AL wasn't WTA. Same reason 1860 had no faithless electors - NJ wasn't WTA.

Hm, didn't know that. Still it's funny since Kennedy won the state's PV with 56.39% (Dave doesn't list any unpledged voters in Alabama for 1960.)

Where they being allocated via CDs? For since when?

The actual candidates for elector were listed on the GE ballot instead of the candidates, and people could vote however they wanted. So a split delegation served in the EC.

While this is true, the 11 Democratic electors were chosen in a primary, with 6 Anti-Kennedy and 5 Kennedy electors. During the general election campaign, the Anti-Kennedy electors were active.

Nonetheless most voters simply voted for all 11 Democrats. The top Anti-Kennedy elector received 324,000 votes, the top Kennedy elector 318,000. It is convention when reporting popular vote totals when voters are voting for individual electors to report the votes for the top candidate.

However, that convention was developed for cases where there were two competing slates (e.g. California in 1912).

How the popular votes are attributed, determines whether JFK or Richard Nixon won the so-called national popular vote.

[jimrtex]

Pretty silly to even have people as electors at all though if they are required to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged. Why not just eliminate the middleman?

I mean, I get that the literal answer to that in Minnesota's case is because it wouldn't be constitutional, but the whole "you must vote this way, or else" thing is something you'd expect from a tinhorn dictator.

Agreed. I think that's why there's serious doubt about the Constitutionality of these faithless elector laws. It seems pretty clear that the legislatures get to determine the manner of selection of the electors, but what is the point if they have to vote a certain way?

What is the point of determining the manner of election, if the manner of election is based on votes for the presidential candidates, but the electors don't vote for those candidates?

[jimrtex]

Pretty silly to even have people as electors at all though if they are required to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged. Why not just eliminate the middleman?

I mean, I get that the literal answer to that in Minnesota's case is because it wouldn't be constitutional, but the whole "you must vote this way, or else" thing is something you'd expect from a tinhorn dictator.

Agreed. I think that's why there's serious doubt about the Constitutionality of these faithless elector laws. It seems pretty clear that the legislatures get to determine the manner of selection of the electors, but what is the point if they have to vote a certain way?

What is the point of determining the manner of election, if the manner of election is based on votes for the presidential candidates, but the electors don't vote for those candidates?

You're describing what we've de facto morphed the system into, not the way in which it was designed. It wasn't intended to just be a rubber stamp like it is now. Most states didn't even have a popular vote initially.

By 1796 (third election) electors were already being elected by parties. By 1800, 137 of 138 electors voted for either Jefferson and Burr; or Adams and Pinckney.

This resulted in a tie between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, which went to the House of Representatives where the lame duck Federalists tried to scheme to elect Burr as President. It was realized that the initial system was not working and the 12th Amendment was added. It recognized that electors were being chosen based on parties.

It is false that most states did not have a popular vote initially. In the first election 6 of the 10 states chose their electors by popular vote, including the Big 3 most associated with the Revolution, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. 64% of the Washington electors were popularly elected.

[jimrtex]

People that got fewer electoral votes than Faith Spotted Eagle:
-Jeb Bush
-Ted Cruz
-Marco Rubio
-Chris Christie
-Rand Paul
-Scott Walker
-Martin O'Malley
-Jill Stein
-Gary Johnson
-Evan McMullin

People who got more electoral votes than when they actually ran for President:
Ron Paul
Winona LaDuke

[jimrtex]

Pretty silly to even have people as electors at all though if they are required to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged. Why not just eliminate the middleman?

I mean, I get that the literal answer to that in Minnesota's case is because it wouldn't be constitutional, but the whole "you must vote this way, or else" thing is something you'd expect from a tinhorn dictator.

Agreed. I think that's why there's serious doubt about the Constitutionality of these faithless elector laws. It seems pretty clear that the legislatures get to determine the manner of selection of the electors, but what is the point if they have to vote a certain way?

What is the point of determining the manner of election, if the manner of election is based on votes for the presidential candidates, but the electors don't vote for those candidates?

You're describing what we've de facto morphed the system into, not the way in which it was designed. It wasn't intended to just be a rubber stamp like it is now. Most states didn't even have a popular vote initially.

By 1796 (third election) electors were already being elected by parties. By 1800, 137 of 138 electors voted for either Jefferson and Burr; or Adams and Pinckney.

This resulted in a tie between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, which went to the House of Representatives where the lame duck Federalists tried to scheme to elect Burr as President. It was realized that the initial system was not working and the 12th Amendment was added. It recognized that electors were being chosen based on parties.

It is false that most states did not have a popular vote initially. In the first election 6 of the 10 states chose their electors by popular vote, including the Big 3 most associated with the Revolution, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. 64% of the Washington electors were popularly elected.

Yes, the 12th Amendment was designed to accommodate the reality that political parties were an inescapable part of the electoral process. But that amendment didn't change the basic setup which was that the electoral college was designed to select living, breathing human beings to cast the electoral votes. The state gets to choose the method of appointing its electors, and having the parties choose their slate ensures that the electors will almost always vote for the party nominee who wins the state's electoral vote, but the state is still limited to selecting the person, not the person's vote. And once the state has appointed its electors, the Constitution doesn't give a state the power to un-appoint them if they do something the state doesn't like any more than it gave the state the power to recall Senators.

I agree that combining the Constitutionally mandated electoral college with a statewide popular vote allows for absurd results, but such is the reality until the electoral college is repealed.

Colorado statute says a vacancy results if an elector is deceased, absent, or refuses to act.

If an elector dies or is absent, they are not un-appointed. They are replaced.

If an elector was present, but proceeded to ride a bicycle around the chamber, presumably you would have no problem with their replacement. If someone refused to cast a ballot or cast a blank ballot you presumably would have no problem with their replacement, since their action is in violation of the 12th Amendment.

So we are down to a quite narrow issue whether voting in contravention of state law, and their oath of office is a refusal to act.

Colorado permits voters to appoint the electors. Colorado could lose representation in Congress if voters are disenfranchised. The Democratic Party required the electors to pledge that they would vote for the presidential candidates of the party. Had they not executed that pledge, they would not have been chosen electors. If there is no surety that they would vote for Clinton and Kaine then voters would have been less likely to vote for them. And if they were permitted to disregard their pledge, then they would in effect be disenfranchising voters who expected them to vote for Clinton and Kaine.

Senators are federal officers. Presidential electors are state officers. It is within the power of the State to remove or recall state officials who fail to comply with state laws.

Congress in January, will have an opportunity to count or not count the electoral votes from Colorado.

[jimrtex]

30th Colorado College of Electors

[jimrtex]

If someone refused to cast a ballot or cast a blank ballot you presumably would have no problem with their replacement, since their action is in violation of the 12th Amendment.

Well that's happened before actually, in DC in 2000, and it was accepted.

Did the District have a law regarding faithless electors? In the past, there have been vacancies when an elector did not show up, and there were no state laws to permit replacement.

Congress likely does not have any power to force a State (or D.C.) to participate.

Colorado permits voters to appoint the electors. Colorado could lose representation in Congress if voters are disenfranchised. The Democratic Party required the electors to pledge that they would vote for the presidential candidates of the party. Had they not executed that pledge, they would not have been chosen electors. If there is no surety that they would vote for Clinton and Kaine then voters would have been less likely to vote for them. And if they were permitted to disregard their pledge, then they would in effect be disenfranchising voters who expected them to vote for Clinton and Kaine.

I mean, I think you make a good argument why maybe the electoral college should be abolished or the electoral votes should be automatic without electors, but that doesn't make these faithless elector laws any less unconstitutional as it stands.

There is model legislation offered by the NCSL with regard to faithless electors. Surely it would not be facially unconstitutional.

The only possible injury that the faithless electors might suffer is that they do not have an opportunity to be elected on a honest representation of their intentions. States should permit slates of uncommitted electors, who do not list presidential and vice presidential candidates.