Skip to main content

Dear Tea Party, There is no quorum needed at the Electoral College, stay home if you want, in fact all 24 states that went for Romney could not show, and Obama would still be re-elected.

I am always shocked when people who claim to have gone to some kind of higher educational institution fails to interpret simple text (Patrick Henry College is not included). I feel I need to help them out. Here is a simple news flash to the “Tea Party” cult members who have failed to take a moment and READ the twelfth amendment (it is 208 years old, you have had the time), and trust me, it is not that long, but it does have some big words in it.

The WAY the Electoral College is votes is laid out in the first paragraph (bolds are mine as bolds were not invented until the 20th century).

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--
Now take a look... you know what you do not see? Any requirement for a quorum call.

 The process is simple. pulls its delegates together, they vote for who they want to (no requirement to even vote for the winner of your state, but because the delegates are selected by the candidates people, a switch is rare.) That is it people. No More.

Where the Tea Party Cult is getting their very misguided information from is because they clearly cannot read the second part.

Here is the second part...

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--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; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.
Okay here is where you are getting confused Tea Party people (math does that). The President of Senate, for the sake of typing, we will call him Harry. Harry gets the votes sealed up from the delegates of the and in front of all his co-workers he opens them up and shares with the others what was in the envelope.

Now I will give you a wee bit of a history lesson so you can understand the rest of it. You see our founding fathers were clear that they did not want political parties. Now frankly that request lasted about 6 years... but Mr. Washington was clear on the subject.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

George Washington, September 19, 1796

So what does that mean to the 12th amendment? Easy back when this thing was written there was not JUST Republicans, or Democrats, we had more than two people that could run for president and have a chance of winning a state. The more people you have on the ballot, the more of a chance to have a tie.

Here is where you guys are just being willfully ignorant of the 12th amendment. As it says, “and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.”

See, that "if" is really getting in the way... but I will go on.

Let me give you an example. Let’s say in 2012, Obama, Romney, Smith, Martinez, and Jackson all won a state or two and had electoral votes. At the end of the day, 2 of the 5 people here tied. Say Martinez and Obama both got 134 electoral votes, and the rest of the 3 split the rest electoral votes, Romney having 103. According to the 12th Amendment, Obama, Martinez, and Romney would be put to a vote in the House. Smith and Jackson, they are done. (before the 12th Amendment, the top 5 were put to a vote)

All the 12th Amendment is saying is that in order to have that vote (NOTE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE), in order for the House of Representatives to have this TIE BREAKING vote, there must be a 2/3 majority present. This was put in place to keep the  House of Representatives from having this vote in the middle of the night when no one was around. You know to keep people like you from stealing the election. I want to add that this need for a quorum is not different than any other House business.

Do you understand now Tea Party? The only way that your little call to make sure that there is no quorum so that you can undermine the will of the American people (who you clearly seem to have contempt for)  and get Romney elected is for there to have been a tie in the electoral votes that are sent to the President of the Senate. Your “Plan” died on  June 15, 1804. You are welcome to have your state “withhold” its Electoral College vote, you only help out… you do not hurt. So.. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!

Originally posted to Ioo on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 04:43 PM PST.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Illiterate Dumbassed Goobers (11+ / 0-)

    can't fucking read.  Must have gone to a charter school.

    •  Nope, homeschooled. n/t (5+ / 0-)
      •  Wrong (12+ / 0-)

        Some of you folks love to paint everyone a certain way...we homeschooled both our daughters and they, like us, are compassionate socially well-adjusted liberals who learned how to critically think about issues, read and write at a college level, and crank out some mean math. We did not teach to the test and we did not fit some arbitrary curriculum defined by the state. Our daughters read Howard Zinn as a window on history from the people's viewpoint. They read socially and intellectually challenging books and learned to source actual scientific research. It's not that public school is evil or wrong, it's just that we, as a family, would rather have the freedom to dig deeper into issues and subjects, without having to finish up by the end of an hour and without fitting a set of common "outcomes".
        Thanks.

        •  There is a difference... (9+ / 0-)

          ... between homeschooling (i.e. actually teaching something) and keeping one's children at home to shield them from reality. Unfortunately, the latter variety has become what people associate with homeschooling.

          261.A wealthy man can afford anything except a conscience. -Ferengi Rules of Acquisition

          by MaikeH on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 07:51:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Just curious... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lujane, Nova Land

          What were the logistics of doing home schooling?

          I'm just curious about how home schooling is done. Did one of you stay home to do the teaching? Was the teach done at night after work?

          Do one of you earn enough so that the other spouse doesn't need to work?

          If the questions are uncomfortable, no need to respond.

          I'm just curious how home schooling works.

          What separates us, divides us, and diminishes the human spirit.

          by equern on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 12:58:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Probably wrong in many ways (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lujane

        I'll affirm my disapproval of the negative knee-jerk reaction some folks have about the concept of homeschooling.  Just last week, a comment to a diary said that public schools should be the only schooling allowed in the U.S.  

        It's just an incredible bias that seems usually based on personal anecdotes where population size = 1.   Compare with a local secular homeschooling community we used to participate in where population = 100+ and mostly composed of liberals. I saw many of them at an Obama rally.

        But on a broader point,  I would bet that most tea party supporters attended public schools.  I know all of our local legislative contingent of tea party politicians did.   So, where's the knee-jerk reaction that all stupid politicians attended public school?

    •  I want to go to Electoral College (6+ / 0-)

      But I hear that only 538 students are allowed at any given time.  And I can't find any application information on the Intertoobz.  Who do you need to know to get in?

      •  If you need to ask, then you can't ... (0+ / 0-)

        © grover


        So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

        by grover on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 12:56:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Work your ass off for your state party! (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lujane, SueDe, Angie in WA State

        Build a reputation for being honest and trustworthy, and let it be known that's what you want.

        Go to your party's state convention. That's usually where state slates are built.

        Good luck!

        What separates us, divides us, and diminishes the human spirit.

        by equern on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 01:01:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's not the "what" you need to know; (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Angie in WA State

        it's the "who."  Equern has it right - read that comment again.

        "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

        by SueDe on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 02:49:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Even if it were true (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lujane

    Like all the Romney state electors would boycott the vote.

    Sheesh!

    I am progressive. I am liberal. I make no apologies. - Kos

    My political compass: - 8.38,-6.97

    by pucklady on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 05:18:16 PM PST

  •  The VP is the President of the Senate (10+ / 0-)

    It's Joe Biden who gets to say "And the award goes to..."

  •  In 2000 ... (6+ / 0-)

    wasn't there talk of holding the Electoral College without Florida if the vote wasn't resolved? I mean, not that it actually was resolved, but before the Supreme Court decided to resolve it to their own satisfaction?

    States can choose not to participate. It is the majority of those electors from those states who do.

    I swear this was discussed.

    www.stacysmusings.wordpress.com

    by Magenta on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 09:26:45 PM PST

  •  This theory of theirs (6+ / 0-)

    isn't even worthy of debunking.  Had Obama won a 45-state landslide, do you think the TP would have acknowledged his legitimacy?  He's black for crying out loud!

    Early to rise and early to bed Makes a man healthy, wealthy, and dead. --Not Benjamin Franklin

    by Boundegar on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 01:30:27 AM PST

    •  worth noting; (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ClevelandAttorney

      IF (there it is again) the fever dreams of the teabaggers was actually true, it would mean that the election itself is a meaningless exercise. If the states that vote for the loser can overturn the election by boycotting, then the election only counts if the winner gets a huge landslide and can ignore the boycott. Like corrupt dictatorships around the world.

      They lost the election.
      They lost the popular vote (backup consolation #1)
      So now they simply have invented a way they can haz win (backup consolation #2).

      Some are reading these corrections, so have moved on to Consolation Prize #3; Return of the Birthers.
      Yes, that is true.
      They hate a lot of things, but they really, really hate losing.
      They better get used to it.

      Stand for something, or you'll fall for anything - Malcolm X via Skindred

      by kamarvt on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 07:37:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I believe they'd call that a "Coup" of the Constit (0+ / 0-)

        when looking back. Or right now. In fact I'd say it is treasonous in reality. The president just could care less cuz it won't happen.

        The first Amendment does not protect all speech, interesting how close they come.

        (Protected Prob: Someone should __
        Prob not: You 4 follow me to _
        __ tonight! (assuming __ is illegal)

        Parenthetical not even about treason just about any crime or violence.

  •  You just don't get it! (7+ / 0-)

    When you live in your own made up reality, you get to interpret the constitution the way you want.  Word order, word definition, and grammatical rules just don't matter.  It's just like global warming or election polling...if you don't like what you see, just ignore it and pretend otherwise.  

    This will work really well until Joe Biden counts the votes...then they will pretend about something else.

  •  the "Tea Party" constitutes roughly (6+ / 0-)

    1/10th of 1% of the total population. who cares what they "think", and i use the term in its loosest possible definition. that so many of their candidates for re-election got the boot, should be a good indication that many voters came to their senses this november. they won't exist in 2014. well, aside from the five living in their mother's basement.

  •  After the Electoral College process... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gffish

    ...Allen West will declare himself Military Commander of the American Liberation Army.

    If he even suggested that, he'd have MILLIONS pouring into whatever donation apparatus would be set up.

    When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

    by Egalitare on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 02:22:57 AM PST

  •  Well stated. One clarification, though. (3+ / 0-)

    The 2/3 quorum is of State delegations to the House, not a 2/3 majority of the House.  IOW, 34 State Delegations of House members must be represented, even if those delegations represent less than 2/3 of the actual House (435 * 2/3 = 290)

    Ultimately, the only thing that matters with respect to preserving choice is who will be nominating the next Supreme Court Justices.

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 03:13:52 AM PST

    •  Which means... (2+ / 0-)

      In turn, that if Republican representatives refused to show up, as long as at least one congressman from the state was a Democrat, then that state would be represented and count toward the 2/3 quorum.

      Which only would apply in the event that the electoral college itself failed to select a winner, and so the entire thing is completely pointless, just like the teatards.

      NH4JL DIT '04, NHDP DIT '08!

      by realnrh on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 06:35:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Which drives home the point that the lone (0+ / 0-)

      (Or few) Dem from Red states really does matter. I mean, of course every Dem representative matters. And for that matter, every Dem vote in every state matters.

      But I'm a big fan in preparing for the worst and weirdest possible scenario in all cases. So another Dem congressionsl representative from CA or MA (love ya MA!) is not exactly the same as another Dem from MS, even when the red state Dem is less reliably liberal.

      Ok. I'll stop thinking aloud now.

      © grover


      So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

      by grover on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 01:09:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So if (in a House of Rep scenario) we need 34 (0+ / 0-)

        states to be present for a quorum, could Republicans block a House election of a new President, under current circumstances? (I know, this is not happening, just a hypothetical)

        50 minus 34 is 16, so 17 state delegations would need to boycott the vote. There are nine all Republican delegations currently -- ID, MT, WY, ND, SD, NE, KS, NH, AK. There are another 5 states with only one Democrat, but it appears we are safe from this particular scenario, unless our states become even more polarized than they are now, God forbid.

        Mark E. Miller // Kalamazoo Township Trustee // MI 6th District Democratic Chair

        by memiller on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 05:53:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  They should try this. (8+ / 0-)

    Obama would be the first President since George Washington to win unanimously.

  •  a few side points... you say... (6+ / 0-)
    (no requirement to even vote for the winner of your state, but because the delegates are selected by the candidates people, a switch is rare.)
    There is no requirement in the amendment to vote for the winner of your state, but individual states can and many do have such a requirement in statute.

    Also, I am an alternate elector this year in Michigan, so will be traveling to Lansing in a few weeks to participate in all this. I was not selected by the Obama campaign, rather as MDP district chair I selected our elector (and myself as alternate). Now, one consideration in doing so is picking someone who is an absolutely loyal Democrat, with a lifetime of loyalty to the Democratic Party, someone for whom it is unthinkable that they will try to play games once they get there. And that is what I did. My selection was ratified by Party leadership, and by the MDP Convention and State Central Committee. The point is there is a process in place, but it is not exactly the candidate, at least not in all states.

    Mark E. Miller // Kalamazoo Township Trustee // MI 6th District Democratic Chair

    by memiller on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 06:15:52 AM PST

    •  However those individual state requirements and (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      memiller

      punishments for "unfaithful" electors might not be Constitutional.  I don't think they have ever been tested in court, have they?

      You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

      by Throw The Bums Out on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 06:51:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  As far as I know, you are correct... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Throw The Bums Out

        There have been a handful of "faithless electors" over the years, but never in a situation where it  mattered. It is a potential hole (one among many) in our Constitutional system.

        We are using our Constitution to accomplish ends it was never designed for, like a popular election of a President. The electors were supposed to be wise heads who would judiciously select a President away from the passions of the rabble.

        We really should do a top to bottom redesign of our Constitution, but I'm afraid we could never agree on a replacement in today's fractured polity.

        Mark E. Miller // Kalamazoo Township Trustee // MI 6th District Democratic Chair

        by memiller on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 09:04:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Has there ever been any attempt to punish (0+ / 0-)

          a faithless elector under those state laws and if so, was it challenged in court?

          You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

          by Throw The Bums Out on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 09:25:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Even if the court case happened... (0+ / 0-)

            What could the practical outcome be? The EC vote happens incredibly close to the inauguration, and I really, really hope there's no way to rescind someone's presidency after inauguration happens (except for impeachment - but that doesn't CANCEL the election, it just cuts the term short.)

            •  I was refering to being punished by fines (and (0+ / 0-)

              possibly a short jail sentence but I doubt that).  Of course, the fines would have to be larger than any potential bribes.

              Speaking of bribes, are electors in the electoral college covered under anti-bribery laws?

              You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

              by Throw The Bums Out on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 05:54:46 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  The idea that electors are (0+ / 0-)

          "Wise heads who would judiciously choose our next president"

          And that "this is is a hole in our Constitution" are diamentrically opposed to each other, as you clearly know.

          The quadrennial calls to get rid of the electoral college tend to come from a handful of very populated and reliably red or blue states.

          I am currently a registered citizen of CA and everyone here hates the electoral college  But I lived in and still split my time in WA, where the greater Los Angeles area  has more people than our entire state.  I'd prefer that our ability -- and that of even smaller tural states --  to affect the election not be completely obliterated.  

          The large urban cities  would elect the president every election. But this country is rural too.

          One vote one person sounds democratic. But we were settled territory be territory, state by state. We are, after all, the United States.  We select our representatives -- congressional and electoral. We are not a direct democracy.

          I dunno. I don't think this is a hole in the Constitution.

          Yes, as a Dem, I realize that getting rid of the EC would benefit our party this century. But things change. And with climate change, coastal cities will become depopulated. Who knows what will be best for us in the future.

          This system has worked very well for the USA thus far. A few faithless electors over 2 centuries is testament to how well it does work.

          © grover


          So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

          by grover on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 01:30:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  And remember the historical footnote of 1872 (0+ / 0-)

          Hoarce Greeley, Liberal Republican (and Democratic nominee) died on Nov. 29, and all but 3 of his 66 electors votes were scattered (and the 3 cast for him were rejected by Congress because they were cast for an ineligible candidate--because he was dead).  

          So the Constitution sometimes is challenged by extraneous factors. --but the system worked through it, and Grant was reelected.

  •  It Amazes Me (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ClevelandAttorney, sawgrass727

    that people that claim to "Defend" the Constitution have
    NEVER actually read the Document.

    Or they Read the Constitution, Ignore what the Document
    Actually says and then Insert whatever They "Think" it
    Should say.

    As Always, the word "Think" MUST be placed in quotes
    due to the Fact that it's application to certain People
    is extremely tenuous.

    On Giving Advice: Smart People Don't Need It and Stupid People Don't Listen

    by Brian76239 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 07:28:43 AM PST

    •  Bingo (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sawgrass727

      Every attorney knows EVERY judge is an "Activist Judge". Why? Because no law can be written to provide for every situation. That's why we have jobs. A judge ruling on something, what he says IS THE LAW. Anything a judge says in an opinion is JUDGE MADE LAW. So Scalia not an activist re the say HUGE departure from militia's in the 2nd Amendment? I am still trying to find where it has any individuals' right to bear arms. (the second amendment, don't think it does- but now Scalia made law, and apparently not HUGE judicial activism?)

  •  There is still room for shenanigans-pointless ones (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sawgrass727

    Take OH. Now yes the constitution says that. It says other things, but there really is no Constitutional "Right to Vote" nor description of How- it's left to the states.

    The Amendment you describes assumes that in each respective state that the votes have been certified and sent and the Vice President as President of the Senate can Count.

    So what is the worst that could theoretically happen? (Well Worst is that People could vote for whoever they wanted but you usually choose your electors as people that would never even consider that).

    Otherwise, Again I'll just go with Ohio.  The state's laws are actually how you get the votes to be counted in the first place. And they allow I guess for Shenanigans.

    The secretary of state shall immediately upon the completion of the canvass of election returns mail to each presidential elector so elected a certificate of his election and shall notify him to attend, at a place in the state capitol which the secretary of state shall select, at twelve noon on the day designated by the congress of the United States, a meeting of the state’s presidential electors for the purpose of discharging the duties enjoined on them by the constitution of the United States. The secretary of state, ten days prior to such meeting, shall by letter remind each such elector of the meeting to be held for casting the vote of the state for president and vice-president of the United States. Each such elector shall give notice to the secretary of state before nine a.m. of that day whether or not he will be present at the appointed hour ready to perform his duties as a presidential elector.
    That is Ohio's Revised Code at 3505.40. So I guess Husted (Ohio's SOS) could not send? That'd probably be an offense (I am not looking that far into) or somehow they could stop the people from returning their RSVP?

    But, the next part of the code then says that even if they aren't there at noon should the SOS and Governor be there, they'll use electors of the same party

    the presidential electors present shall immediately proceed, in the presence of the governor and secretary of state, to appoint by ballot such number of persons to serve as presidential electors so that the number of duly elected presidential electors present at such time and place plus the presidential electors so appointed shall be equal in number to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state is at that time entitled in the congress of the United States; provided, that each such appointment shall be made by a separate ballot, and that all appointments to fill vacancies existing because duly elected presidential electors are not present shall be made before other appointments are made, and that in making each such appointment the person appointed shall be of the same political party as the duly elected presidential elector whose absence requires such appointment to be made. In case of a tie vote the governor shall determine the results by lot.
    So there I guess Kasich could not attend? Somehow not let any democrats in? I am pretty sure that he'd be in some trouble. Same with Husted. And I don't think they can block access until only Republican Electors can vote. Besides per that section of Code you get 10 dollars a day AND 10 cents a mile for attending. Seriously.

    So I am bypassing the quorum rules that may exist in the joint meeting to allow this to happen. I see theoretically state bs.

    I suppose after they certify the votes they could not get mailed? But the fine is a whopping 1,000.00

    So I am not saying that any would happen. You'd look pretty foolish. I am sure Obama has contingencies for anything that cold happen and all it would look like is a coup in reality.

    The thing to ultimately take some solace in is this (if anyone could ever seriously be worried- I'm not worried if a tea party blow hard makes a fool of himself and doesn't attend to hold the show up like Kasich)

    http://www.archives.gov/...

    Those states that do not require a pledge as to a vote. But again my understanding is the ppl serving as electors in the first place would basically be the ppl who were closest to the President so even in the non-pledge states, don't see it happening (ie it'd be ppl like Bill Clinton).

    Actually I've always heard that I wonder who it actually is.

    Oh yeah, so I hope at Georgia they don't bother doing what state law requires that'd make things interesting but pretty sure the states where he won 270 plus will, so they'll probably count those and then take care of the nuts.

    •  No, the worst that could happen is the state (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      drmah

      legislature passes a law saying that their state's electoral votes go to the Rethug candidate next election and eliminate the popular vote for president entirely in that state.

      You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

      by Throw The Bums Out on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 05:56:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Meaning of this part... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ClevelandAttorney, sawgrass727
    and if no person have such majority
    I take that to mean that if no candidate receives a majority of the total Electoral College delegates, i.e. >269 in our modern times, >50% of the total of 538 delegates.  If true, then it means that there does not have to be a tie in two or more candidates to have the election go to the House.

    Of course, since I am not a Constitutional scholar nor a lawyer, I am probably wrong.

    My core tenets:
    • I am intolerant of only intolerance
    • I am prejudiced only against prejudice
    • I hate only hate
    I don't know why Republicans continue to contrive to be on the wrong end of these three tenets.

    by DrSpalding on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 07:32:08 AM PST

    •  I am an attorney and I approve your message (0+ / 0-)

      although I don't think it possible to get there.

      That'd assume some states would not send certified votes. That's kinda against the law.

      Legislative Interpretation is- What is the Plain meaning/intent expressed? To me majority of what? A certain number. What if Obama gets 300 electoral votes returned all for him no others? I'd say that's either a majority of those returned or a majority of all, he wins . . .

      The only situation of interest I could see is if when Biden counts there is like 80 electors for Romney. Is someone goiong to argue he got the Majority cast? But not Majority of "electoral College delegages". Doubt it. Cue sideshow.

      For those states with political ambitions:

      I think they'll certify. I doubt this is all they'd get.

      If the National Archives and Records Administration does not receive a state's certificates within nine days of the Electoral College vote, the President of the Senate or Archivist of the United States contacts the state's Secretary of State and requests the immediate transmission of the certificates by registered mail.

      At the same time, a special messenger is dispatched to retrieve the certificates held by the Federal District judge and carries them by hand to Washington. The fine for not delivering the certificates is $1,000.

      On the sixth of January, the President of the United States Senate, who is also the Vice President of the United States, counts the Electoral College votes before a joint session of Congress. The candidates require a majority of electoral votes to become president and vice president.

      •  Third Party (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ClevelandAttorney

        If a third party candidate won a state, it is possible to get into the situation where no candidate wins 50%+1 Electoral College electors, and no shenanigans were present during the count by the President of the Senate.

        It's not very likely these days, I'll grant you that.

        My core tenets:
        • I am intolerant of only intolerance
        • I am prejudiced only against prejudice
        • I hate only hate
        I don't know why Republicans continue to contrive to be on the wrong end of these three tenets.

        by DrSpalding on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 07:44:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So youre saying (0+ / 0-)

          The Libertarian wins Idk Florida, some other states.

          It's

          268

          2__

          Third party?

          Or something like that?

          •  Yes. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ClevelandAttorney

            Majority in this case is of the total electors, as it says in the 12th Amendment:

            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; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.
            My whole and only point is that it does not require the top candidates to end in a tie of Electoral College electors to go to the House for the confirmation vote when more than two candidates have won at least one state's electors.  In practical terms, with only two parties capable of winning a state, it does however require a 269-269 tie to go there.

            My core tenets:
            • I am intolerant of only intolerance
            • I am prejudiced only against prejudice
            • I hate only hate
            I don't know why Republicans continue to contrive to be on the wrong end of these three tenets.

            by DrSpalding on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 07:57:00 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yep you are right and it is interesting (0+ / 0-)

              And easy to solve.

              And considering it's happened 3 times Its a little disturbing (the house choosing pres).  (In 1800, they decided the electoral college tie between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. In 1824, they decided the four-way race in which the candidate who won the plurality of electoral votes, Andrew Jackson, lost to John Quincy Adams. In 1876, they decided the infamous Hayes/Tilden election.)

              Interesting as we don't think about that. That is if no one got 270. You are right about the 12th Amendment. But you'd also be right if no one got to 270.

              A little disturbing as you'd get all of the states electors together (now) and you just need 26 states. So Cali and VT get the same call (1 vote). Then it's first to 26 states for Pres.

              No clue how anyone trying to usurp the democratic process could get there. I don't think not meeting for state elections matters (esp as 26 states require pledge but never been before supreme Ct if you say don't vote as pledged).

              Seems more likely if they really were serious that they'd coordinate objecting to a state's vote during the joint session. (Ie one House Member one Senator), then the Session is supsended and I could see them causing a bunch of lost time. It happened in 2000, but as Gore was overseeing he declined as the objectors were for him.

              Glad we talked. This made me re-think not much caring about the electoral college. The clear solution if you keep is not the house voting, but the house has to vote based on popular results (of the Country).  

              It does definitely bother me that I now know that the EC was in part a product of a compromise about slavery . . .

              In this strange system, you'd probably have ended up with President Romney and VP Biden. (Senate selects VP)

              •  1876 wasnt a house election per the Constitution (0+ / 0-)

                Rather there two contested slates of electors from 3 states (plus one other contested) that a special electoral commission was appointed to choose which was the "official" slate.  With the 15 member commission split 8R and 7D, all contested electoral slates were decided for the Republicans (Hayes) by the astonishing vote of 8 to 7...   Giving Rutherford B. Hayes an electoral vote victory of 185 to 184, and sending the popular vote victor Samuel Tilden into political historical files.

                The unusual electoral commission was because two slates of electors were presented in part because of the vagaries of reconstruction era politics and some skullduggery.  The "scandal of the century"  so they say..   And yes, Florida was a party to it.

          •  Yup, that's the scenario (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ClevelandAttorney

            Candidate #1 gets 238
            Candidate #2 gets 200
            Candidate #3 gets 100 or #3 and #4 split 100.

            No one has a majority, but there is no tie.

            I don't think there's ever been a split like that, but I could imagine it.

            •  As a Former Second Row and or Wing :-) (0+ / 0-)

              It was close in 1968 (in looking up efforts to abolish the Electoral College the biggest came after this election):

               The presidential election of 1968 resulted in Richard Nixon receiving 301 electoral votes (56% of electors),
              Hubert Humphrey 191 (35.5%)
              and George Wallace 46 (8.5%) with 13.5% of the popular vote.

              However, Nixon had only received 511,944 more popular votes than Humphrey, 43.5% to 42.9%, less than 1% of the national total

              That's a bit different as it shows the EC had a disproprtionate impact on how the people in Humphrey's states voted (ie my 1 vote for humphries counted for less if all things being equal they tied yet Humbrphies lost by over 100 EV)

              So it could easily have been (it seems) something like that.

              Then it goes to the Congress (and they'd consider the top 3 vote getters) and each state would have 1 vote.

              Note: The Bayh-Celler Amendment was introduced got all the way to . . . fillibuster it was:

              Representative Emanuel Celler (D – New York), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, responded to public concerns over the disparity between the popular vote and electoral vote by introducing House Joint Resolution 681, a proposed Constitutional amendment which would have replaced the Electoral College with a system wherein the pair of candidates who won at least 40% of the national popular vote would win the Presidency and Vice Presidency. If no pair received 40% of the popular vote, a runoff election would be held in which the choice of President and Vice President would be made from the two pairs of persons who had received the highest number of votes in the first election
              •  Just seems no one contemplated that kind of crazy (0+ / 0-)

                in a non-civil way.

                Ie what if Blue states with governors- the governors dont show up (ex OH) to the Electors' vote? They have to prepare certificates. Do OH's votes not get counted. Everyone knows who won? What if other states? Enough to keep short of 270?

                Just seems like Civil and Democratic principles of yester-year apply and provide more for real random issues, not self-created. And obviously nothing like what they did went to the SCOTUS. But I'd bet anything it'd be a pretty easy decision and not threaten Obama (no way do they do it again, especially because a governor or whoever stops the democratic process).

            •  1824.. Ask John Quincy Adams.. or A. Jackson (0+ / 0-)

              elected in the House...  

    •  You're right (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ClevelandAttorney

      Just posted a comment above about the 2000 scenario and the possibility of Florida's vote outcome not being ready in time for the EC.  

      Constitutional scholars at the time said the FL vote would be subtracted from the total EC votes before determining the majority vote requirement.  Gore would have won without FL's vote.

  •  No, not really (0+ / 0-)

    The WAY the Electoral College is votes is laid out in the first paragraph (bolds are mine as bolds were not invented until the 20th century)

    In reality bold font was around quite before that - but went by different names (e.g., "fatface" . . . )

  •  Sadly (0+ / 0-)

    most of the teabaggers and the GOP are not very smart.

  •  Note (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sawgrass727, drmah

    Electors from the various states are forbidden from assembling as a body to cast their votes.  So, the constitution does not even allow for determination of quorum in the Electoral College.

  •  Aside from the impossibility of their proposal... (0+ / 0-)

    ...how could this in any way reflect well on the Tea Party?

    At the least, just to propose such an idea expands the perception of TP craziness.  

    And if the proposal was valid and attempted, the action would result in tremendous anger and discord.

    And if the proposal succeeded, the result would be a terrible rent in our nation's politics.  It's easy to imagine Romney requiring some martial law to suppress violent opposition and the shutting down of government.  A second Civil War of sorts. Romney would be presiding over a wreck.

    It's the old adage: Be careful what you ask for.  

  •  I am amazed they haven't brought the . . (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ClevelandAttorney

    faithless elector scenario up for discussion.

    That is the only scenario that is actually remotely plausible, I guess we should count our blessings the Tea Party isn't too smart.

    •  I think I did :-) (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NeverThere

      And in 26 states (including the most important there are laws against). But seems like Only Mich is the Faithless elector's vote voided.

      The reality I learned in Election law is the electors are chosen by the Candidate. They are not people who are going to go against (most likely would've been FL, and that didn't happen- DC abstained 1 vote but as a protest).

      List where pledge (so carries penalties- the penalties went to the SCOTUS but not the effect of vote and upheld). I'll just post as I didn't take time to see if any states without pledges matter (as if decided election I'm quite sure it'd go to the SCOTUS, especially if per pledge)

      I said above also, Id think the best they can do is look stupid and hold up the show. By coordinating to protest a state's election results. Then making the house meet. Unless Biden was able (not sure) to deny. Historically I guess LA and AK were rejected like that (their votes in 1872).

      Example first of OH's Pledge law:

      3505.40 Electoral vote to be cast for party nominees.

      A presidential elector elected at a general election or appointed pursuant to section 3505.39 of the Revised Code shall, when discharging the duties enjoined upon him by the constitution or laws of the United States, cast his electoral vote for the nominees for president and vice-president of the political party which certified him to the secretary of state as a presidential elector pursuant to law.

      No Legal Requirement
      Electors in these States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

      ARIZONA - 10 Electoral Votes
      ARKANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes
      DELAWARE - 3 Electoral Votes
      GEORGIA - 15 Electoral Votes
      IDAHO - 4 Electoral Votes
      ILLINOIS - 21 Electoral Votes
      INDIANA - 11 Electoral Votes
      IOWA - 7 Electoral Votes
      KANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes
      KENTUCKY - 8 Electoral Votes
      LOUISIANA - 9 Electoral Votes
      MINNESOTA - 10 Electoral Votes

      MISSOURI - 11 Electoral Votes
      NEW HAMPSHIRE - 4 Electoral Votes
      NEW JERSEY - 15 Electoral Votes
      NEW YORK - 31 Electoral Votes
      NORTH DAKOTA - 3 Electoral Votes
      PENNSYLVANIA - 21 Electoral Votes
      RHODE ISLAND - 4 Electoral Votes
      SOUTH DAKOTA - 3 Electoral Votes
      TENNESSEE - 11 Electoral Votes
      TEXAS - 34 Electoral Votes
      UTAH - 5 Electoral Votes
      WEST VIRGINIA - 5 Electoral Votes

      Legal Requirements or Pledges
      Electors in these States are bound by State Law or by pledges to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

      ALABAMA - 9 Electoral Votes
          Party Pledge / State Law - § 17-19-2
      ALASKA - 3 Electoral Votes
          Party Pledge / State Law - § 15.30.040; 15.30.070
      CALIFORNIA - 55 Electoral Votes
          State Law - § 6906
      COLORADO - 9 Electoral Votes
          State Law - § 1-4-304
      CONNECTICUT - 7 Electoral Votes
          State Law § 9-175
      DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA - 3 Electoral Votes
          DC Pledge / DC Law - § 1-1312(g)
      FLORIDA - 27 Electoral Votes
          Party Pledge / State Law - § 103.021(1)
      HAWAII - 4 Electoral Votes
          State Law - §§ 14-26 to 14-28
      MAINE - 4 Electoral Votes
          State Law - § 805
      MARYLAND - 10 Electoral Votes
          State Law - § 20-4
      MASSACHUSETTS - 12 Electoral Votes
          Party Pledge / State Law - Ch. 53, § 8, Supp.
      MICHIGAN - 17 Electoral Votes
          State Law - §168.47 (Violation cancels vote and elector is replaced).
      MISSISSIPPI - 6 Electoral Votes
          Party Pledge / State Law - §23-15-785(3)
      MONTANA - 3 Electoral Votes
          State Law - §13-25-104
      NEBRASKA - 5 Electoral Votes
          State Law - § 32-714
      NEVADA - 5 Electoral Votes
          State Law - § 298.050
      NEW MEXICO - 5 Electoral Votes
          State Law - § 1-15-5 to 1-15-9 (Violation is a fourth degree felony.)
      NORTH CAROLINA - 15 Electoral Votes
          State Law - § 163-212 (Violation cancels vote; elector is replaced and is subject to $500 fine.)
      OHIO - 20 Electoral Votes
          State Law - § 3505.40
      OKLAHOMA - 7 Electoral Votes
          State Pledge / State Law - 26, §§ 10-102; 10-109 (Violation of oath is a misdemeanor, carrying a fine of up to $1000.)
      OREGON - 7 Electoral Votes
          State Pledge / State Law - § 248.355
      SOUTH CAROLINA - 8 Electoral Votes
          State Pledge / State Law - § 7-19-80 (Replacement and criminal sanctions for violation.)
      VERMONT - 3 Electoral Votes
          State Law - title 17, § 2732
      * VIRGINIA - 13 Electoral Votes
          State Law - § 24.1-162 (Virginia statute may be advisory - "Shall be expected" to vote for nominees.)
      WASHINGTON - 11 Electoral Votes
          Party Pledge / State Law - §§ 29.71.020, 29.71.040, Supp. ($1000 fine.)
      WISCONSIN - 10 Electoral Votes
          State Law - § 7.75
      WYOMING - 3 Electoral Votes
          State Law - §§ 22-19-106; 22-19-108
      •  I'd add that if somehow they screwed things (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NeverThere

        up by challenging states and investigating, this is a bit disturbing

        If the House of Representatives has not chosen a President-elect in time for the inauguration (noon on January 20), then Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment specifies that the Vice President-elect becomes Acting President until the House selects a President. If the winner of the vice presidential election is also not known by then, then under the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the sitting Speaker of the House would become Acting President until either the House selects a President or the Senate selects a Vice President. None of these situations has ever occurred.
        So, theoretically, I gather that as in the past you voted for VP differently and they didn't change. If they questioned votes for no reason. Beyond Jan 20, you could somehow have a President John Boehner for a bit
        •  Last note- Faithless Elector is a real problem (0+ / 0-)

          I thought it never really happened but I read something like 150 times?

          Striking to me are well a conspiracy in VA in 1836:

          The Democratic Party nominated Richard Mentor Johnson of Kentucky as their vice presidential candidate. The 23 electors from Virginia refused to support Johnson with their votes because of the fact that he had previously lived with and fathered children with an African-American woman. As a result, although the Democratic presidential nominee Martin van Buren won a majority of electoral votes, no vice-presidential candidate won a majority. The decision was therefore made by the U.S. Senate. The Senate elected Johnson as the Vice President, including votes for Johnson by both of Virginia's senators.
          And not like doesn't happen:
          Until 2008, Minnesota's electors cast secret ballots, so that it was not possible to tell if a particular elector was faithless. When in 2004 an unknown elector was faithless, Minnesota law was amended to provide for public balloting of the electors' votes and invalidation of a vote cast for someone other than the candidate to whom the elector is pledged.
      •  Asdf (0+ / 0-)

        Um - Virginia Kay "expect" Electors to vote for their pledged candidate, but they are Not required to do so.

        In 1972, it was a Virginia elector who broke ranks and voted for Libertarian  candidate John Hospers.

        Sadly, everything Communism said about itself was a lie. Even more sadly,, everything Communism said about Capitalism was the truth.

        by GayIthacan on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:59:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  We're having a reunion for... (0+ / 0-)

    the electoral college class of "72.

    Lotsa pizza, beer, spicy chicken wings, the whole nine yards.

    We're planning on retroactively electing McGovern.

    Barry Manilow will be the entertainment.

    What is essential is invisible.

    by bebimbob on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 08:29:50 AM PST

  •  NOTE: The idiot saying this realized he's wrong (0+ / 0-)

    So not much point in us discussing. Ie the "Teaparty Nation guy

    apparently read a little harder and updated his article

    "Since this column was posted it has been discovered that the premise presented about the Electoral College and the Constitution is in error. According to the 12th Amendment, a two-thirds quorum is required in the House of Representatives, not the Electoral College."

    So moving on. . . (i'd suppose he's probably not smart enough to hold up in the other ways).

  •  Asdf (0+ / 0-)

    Ah, the Electoral College!! Leave it to America to come up with a system in which (in theory at least) Candidate A can receive 11 Popular votes and Candidate B can receive 49 million Populat votes land yet Candidate A be
    Declared   the winner!!

    Sadly, everything Communism said about itself was a lie. Even more sadly,, everything Communism said about Capitalism was the truth.

    by GayIthacan on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:55:56 AM PST

  •  Please do this TP Rethugs. you'll look like asses (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drmah

    Only Fox News will report on this kindly.  And they'll mainly dismiss its relevance.

    The only thing we have to fear is fear itself - FDR. Obama Nation. -6.13 -6.15

    by ecostar on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 12:59:41 PM PST

  •  Why call the President of the Senate Harry? (0+ / 0-)

    Let's call him Joe, which is his name, after all.

    Bin Laden is dead. GM and Chrysler are alive.

    by leevank on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 02:17:19 PM PST

  •  Minor correction (0+ / 0-)

    Harry Reid isn't President of the Senate. Biden is.

    Republicans are far more socialist than Democrats. Just because they want to redistribute the wealth upwards does not make it any better.

    by MrAnon on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 07:21:23 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site