Many people complain about the Electoral College, often blaming it for what are actually state problems. Tonight, we will discuss how we can fix these problems.
Institute on the Constitution: https://bit.ly/2HQI6je Free Constitution Course: https://bit.ly/35OtIA5
Like many of you, I am a product of the public schools. Like many of you I thought the Constitution was for lawyers and judges.
One day I read the Constitution, and was surprised to find I didn't need a law degree to understand it. Then I read the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers and even the Anti-Federalist Papers. As I learned more and more about our founding fathers and documents I saw how little we know about how our country was designed to work and how many people just didn't care.
I started The Constitution Study to help those who also want read and study our Constitution.
3 thoughts on “219 – Fixing Presidential Electors”
With so much political clout versus individual choice, just how does the average citizen get a proper elector system accomplished? Most at the state legislatures are above us in elitism. Sad but true.
Loading...
Thank you, Sir. You are probably in FB jail because of the interviews re: What if States w/R Legislatures but /D popular votes, go rogue and appoint R Electors?
So let’s start there, because that’s where we end up.
I am a Retired New Jersey Judge (North Bergen, Hudson County Vicinage.)
I now live in PA. And I am trying to figure out this process. (I bought your book today.)
I have a few questions about the issue that I still don’t get:
* How does the State Legislature (“Upper” and “Lower” arms,) in real life and a real short time-frame,” appoint the Electors?
I understand that if both chambers are of the same party, the process really does not matter. But what happens when the Senators are D and the assembly is R, who gets the pick? Is there debate? Are they’re votes? Whose count more? (There are several States with that configuration.)
* As I see it – and as you just mentioned – such a State can just throw in the towel and not participate at all. (The consequences of that, I understand; the total number of Electors is reduced.)
*But does it really take just one State to “sit it out” to change the whole equation?
*Then it goes to the US House, on a one-State/one-Vote basis. I get that.
*But the Constitution requires 2/3rds of the House to constitute a Quorum.
*What happens if the House does not get a quorum?
I would greatly appreciate talking to you about this. Because I think that that is where we are headed.
Loading...
Technically, the state legislatures determine the manner of appointing electors (Article II, Section 1). Federal law, 3 UCS 2 I believe, reinforces that it is the responsibility of the state legislature to insure that electors are appointed should a vote fail. If they were to choose electors for themselves, that would be determined by state constitution or law.
If a state fails to appoint electors, that does not mean it automatically goes to the House. Amendment 12 says that whoever gets the most votes becomes President if they get a majority of the electors appointed. If a state does not appoint electors, the number needed goes down as well.
Actually, according to Article I Section 5, only a majority is needed for a quorum. I haven’t thought through what would happen if the majority party failed to appear. I don’t know if the power to compel attendance in Section 5 has ever been exercised.
With so much political clout versus individual choice, just how does the average citizen get a proper elector system accomplished? Most at the state legislatures are above us in elitism. Sad but true.
Thank you, Sir. You are probably in FB jail because of the interviews re: What if States w/R Legislatures but /D popular votes, go rogue and appoint R Electors?
So let’s start there, because that’s where we end up.
I am a Retired New Jersey Judge (North Bergen, Hudson County Vicinage.)
I now live in PA. And I am trying to figure out this process. (I bought your book today.)
I have a few questions about the issue that I still don’t get:
* How does the State Legislature (“Upper” and “Lower” arms,) in real life and a real short time-frame,” appoint the Electors?
I understand that if both chambers are of the same party, the process really does not matter. But what happens when the Senators are D and the assembly is R, who gets the pick? Is there debate? Are they’re votes? Whose count more? (There are several States with that configuration.)
* As I see it – and as you just mentioned – such a State can just throw in the towel and not participate at all. (The consequences of that, I understand; the total number of Electors is reduced.)
*But does it really take just one State to “sit it out” to change the whole equation?
*Then it goes to the US House, on a one-State/one-Vote basis. I get that.
*But the Constitution requires 2/3rds of the House to constitute a Quorum.
*What happens if the House does not get a quorum?
I would greatly appreciate talking to you about this. Because I think that that is where we are headed.
Technically, the state legislatures determine the manner of appointing electors (Article II, Section 1). Federal law, 3 UCS 2 I believe, reinforces that it is the responsibility of the state legislature to insure that electors are appointed should a vote fail. If they were to choose electors for themselves, that would be determined by state constitution or law.
If a state fails to appoint electors, that does not mean it automatically goes to the House. Amendment 12 says that whoever gets the most votes becomes President if they get a majority of the electors appointed. If a state does not appoint electors, the number needed goes down as well.
Actually, according to Article I Section 5, only a majority is needed for a quorum. I haven’t thought through what would happen if the majority party failed to appear. I don’t know if the power to compel attendance in Section 5 has ever been exercised.