Posted on 03/30/2016 4:00:36 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
I duuno, but them big damn caps affect me.
Another interesting wrinkle is that any state that has a tied vote in its delegation has no vote on in a given round of voting. That means states with delegations that have equal partisan makeup will cancel each other out and cause their states to have no vote if all members of both political parties represented in Congress vote along party lines for president. This is most likely to be a problem for medium sized states with even numbers of congressional districts. The congressmen representing the very smallest states with just 1 congressman will have quite a bit of power.
Yep. And if my Uncle had been plumbed a little differently, then he might have been my Auntie.
Don't blame me. I just cut and pasted from the original.
Considering all that happened for over a month after election day 2000, I wouldn't rule out even more bizarre things happening this time. I wasn't yet a member of Free Republic, but I lurked a lot on the post election and recount threads.
If this had happened in 2008, and Obama was not chosen, we would have had riots.
This kind of lunatic posting continues to drag FR down.
There is no implication that parties are considered within the amendment. Parties are not in the constitution at all.
The election of 1824 had this happen. John Quincey Adams (3d place finisher) was selected over Jackson and Clay in the famous “corrupt bargain”.
This is yet another reason to expand the House of Representatives. The number shouldn’t be 435, it should be at least 10 times that number.
To reach the representation at the birth of our republic, there’d have to be 10,000+ members of the House of Representatives. At that size, we’d approach a more true mix of America.
That and a 5 term limit would do nicely.
We have Roger Sherman to thank for that provision of the Constitution.
It's highly unlikely for this to happen if a candidate has a popular majority. There has only been one presidential candidate who actually won a majority of the popular vote who failed to win a majority in the electoral college. That was Tilden who won 51% of the popular vote in 1876, but even then you should consider that was mostly because, racked up huge margins in former confederate states with margins up to 90% while losing most of the rest of the states. The electoral college penalizes a candidate or party that only has a regional appeal or who loses more states.
Every other time a presidential candidate has won the popular vote and lost the electoral college or has lost in the House of representatives, the candidate winning the popular vote only got a plurality. In 1824 there really wasn't a nationwide popular vote for president. There were large states like New York that didn't even have a popular vote for president. In 1888, incumbent president Grover Cleveland got less than a majority. In 2000, both Bush and Gore had less than a majority.
It’s a possible scenario if Trump runs an independent or 3rd party Bid. No three candidates in this election other than Hillary(D), Trump(I), Cruz(R), in this scenario would be a a good bet. In other words you could wager a small amount for big payout.
On the other hand Hillary can get indicted, Cruz could be found in bed with a 14 year old boy of no particular race and Trump could run of with Megyn Kelly. Events so unlikely that you could never receive an adequate payout.
We’ve had riots before and we’ll have riots again. Our first riots were in 1791 when citizens rose up against federal taxes, the Whiskey Rebellion.
Not really likely, because of ballot access laws. Many states like Texas have "sore loser" laws. It is not possible to get on the ballot in many states if a candidate loses a party nomination but was a candidate in the primary. If the Republican race goes to the convention, all the states will have had primaries or caucuses. Whoever does not get the nomination will be barred from being on the ballot in most states.
Not really likely, because of ballot access laws. Many states like Texas have "sore loser" laws. It is not possible to get on the ballot in many states if a candidate loses a party nomination but was a candidate in the primary. If the Republican race goes to the convention, all the states will have had primaries or caucuses. Whoever does not get the nomination will be barred from being on the ballot in most states.
I wouldn’t know if that was true or false. It’s easier to stick with my fantasy.
What do you mean by "steals the nomination"? The Republican Party has rules some of which have been in effect for 160 years about how conventions are conducted. It takes a majority vote of the delegates to win the nomination. If no candidate has a majority of delegates locked up prior to the convention, there could be a contested convention. It's no different than if a candidate does not get a majority in a primary and there is a runoff election to decide who will be the nominee. Coming in first without a majority is meaningless.
If a candidate participated in a state primary and does not get that party's nomination, that candidate is not allowed to run as an indpendent in that state's general election in the fall or as another party's candidate either. That's long standing election law in most states.
It wouldn’t matter if 3rd party candidate was on the ballot in all states. All he needs is to have some electoral votes, which means he has to win at least one state. If Trump ran 3rd party, where would he win?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.