AP: Vermont Legislature to Pick Governor

NECN ^ | November 5, 2014

[SMGFan]

Vermont legislature will pick governor, the Associated Press reports.

Neither Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin nor Republican challenger Scott Milne won the majority of the vote.

[GLDNGUN]

Controlled by the dems.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Shumlin has little to worry about with VT’s moonbat leg.

[BillyBoy]

Yeah, it will be a mere formality with the overwhelmingly RAT controlled legislature rubber stamping their marxist RAT governor for re-election (ain't those state legislatures wonderful? They should pick our Senators for us, too)

Still, I'm impressed a Republican challenger was able to hold a RAT incumbent to under 50% of the vote in Vermont, and as recently as 2003-2011, the state was in GOP hands. The current Lt. Governor is a Republican so there's still hope of taking back this far left commie hellhole.

[Candor7]

This may end up in court yet! LOL.

[Jacquerie]

<> They should pick our Senators for us, too<>

Exactly.

[Impy]

You know damn well he was being sarcastic.

[BillyBoy]

Oh well, Jacquerie (love the frenchy screenname, its fitting) can take comfort in the fact his beloved VT state legislature at least gets to appoint a communist as Governor. We don’t need no stinkin’ electorate! Career politicians know whats best for the little people!

[x]

They have that power because they don't actually use it.

That is to say, unless the election is a dead heat and no one can say who won they will always go with the candidate who gets more votes.

If the legislature goes against the "winning" candidate it will quickly find its power to decide elections stripped away.

The same principle relates to the Electoral College and the idea that state legislatures should pick US Senators.

If electors or state legislators decided to go against the election returns, they'd lose the "power" to "decide."

[Impy]

In 1858, Republican Abe Lincoln won 50.6% of the vote (either that’s the total % GOP legislative candidates got or there was a separate preference referendum) but the leg majority remained rat and they voted along party lines to reelect Douglas, the 17 amendment wasn’t passed for another 50 years.

[x]

In 1858, Republican Abe Lincoln won 50.6% of the vote (either that’s the total % GOP legislative candidates got or there was a separate preference referendum) but the leg majority remained rat and they voted along party lines to reelect Douglas, the 17 amendment wasn’t passed for another 50 years.

I was talking about now (and in the recent past). Clearly, there was a time when state legislatures could do what they liked when it came to appointing Senators, but by 1913 or so that had changed, and it isn't going to change back any time soon.

My understanding of the 1858 figures is that there wasn't a separate preference referendum, though, so even though more votes may have gone to Republican legislative candidates, there wasn't a firm mandate from the electorate to vote for Lincoln, and the Democrat majority in the legislature didn't feel bound to support the candidate of the other party. So long as there wasn't a head-to-head two candidate popular vote, state legislatures had a free hand.

I guess the moral of the story for those who want indirect election of Senators is to make sure voters don't have any opportunity to vote for candidates directly. You'd have to do away with primary elections too. It would be better to make the selection process non-partisan and multi-candidate. I don't see much hope today for changing the system back to what it once was, though.