Posted on 03/30/2016 4:00:36 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
Gary Johnson would have to do better than the .99% he got nationally and 3.55% he got in his best state (New Mexico) last time.
And Mark Cuban? What's the state he'll carry? And c'mon, he's supposed to be some kind of altenative to Donald Trump? More like a twin brother from another mother.
In my state of Texas, not only can someone who participated as a candidate for office in a primary not appear as an independent candidate or candidate of any other party, but anyone who voted in a partisan primary is not allowed to sign a petition to get an independent candidate on the general election ballot. An independent has just a few weeks to apply as an independent candidate for an office, but must get the required number of signatures from registered voters who did not vote in a partisan primary in that election cycle.
And Mark Cuban? What's the state he'll carry? And c'mon, he's supposed to be some kind of altenative to Donald Trump? More like a twin brother from another mother.
Has there ever been a presidential race before between two major party candidates where the candidates both have over 50% unfavorability ratings? Trump has about a 60% unfavorability rating. That's yuge!
In Utah which is the most Republican state in the union, voters would rather vote for Hillary than Trump. Gary Johnson might appeal to people who don't like Trump but can't stomach Hillary as president either. Colorado which has legalized marijuana isn't very fond of Hillary. Bernie won almost 60% in the Colorado Democrat caucuses.
the biggest wrinkle I can think of to inhibit this is each state must certify the election in that state. This is not a federal province.
A state or states can simply not certify, so where does Amendment #12 go from there?
A state or states can simply not certify, so where does Amendment #12 go from there?
Correct, but the provisions referred to in the 12th amendment don't really come into play unless no one wins a majority (270) electoral votes in the electoral college.
If after the states have held their elections to select electors, and the electoral college electors cast their votes at noon in their respective state capitols, and there is no candidate with 270+ electoral votes, then the election gets thrown to the incoming House. The House then votes between the candidates with the 3 highest electoral vote totals. The easiest way to get a result where no candidate wins a majority of electors is if there are at least 3 candidates who win the popular votes in states and the candidate with the most votes does not gain at least 270 electoral votes. Another if less likely way is if there were a 269-269 tie in the electoral college.
If it were already known before the electors meet in their state capitols in December that no candidate would get an electoral majority, there might be less discipline amongst electors in voting for the candidates to which they are pledged. In the case of a 269-269 tie based on the popular vote on election day, just 1 elector could cause the election in the House to be a 3 way race by voting for another candidate. What if an unfaithful elector from Vermont decided to vote for Bernie Sanders instead of Hillary Clinton? The projected vote would then be Hillary Clinton 268, Donald Trump 269, and Bernie Sanders 1. The race would still go to the House, but Bernie Sanders would be one of the 3 top candidates and he could receive votes in the House. Since the electors meet at noon on the same day in their respective state capitols, any unfaithful elector in the eastern time zone could have a ripple effect in other states that are in the Central, Mountain, and Pacific time zones. Knowing that the election will be sent to the House anyway, some electors in states in time zones to the west could vote for other candidates to knock Bernie Sanders out of 3rd place.
Well, that was ignored in 1876.
It would not surprise me if, as then, different slates of electors sent their votes in, claiming victory.
For that matter, 3 U.S.C. 5 wasn’t followed in 2000.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/5
I’m not sure that 3 U.S.C. 13 was followed either.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/13
3 U.S.C. 15 was followed in 2000.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15
Votes aren’t counted until January.
On the other hand, you’re right - sort of.
In 1960, an elector pledged to vote for Nixon offered to vote for Harry Byrd if Democrat electors would join him.
So far as I know, it’s just honor system - the faithless electors would not know for certain that the bargain was kept.
Until the votes are counted that is....
The rules were different then but the EV in 1800 was:
Jefferson 73, Burr 73,
Adams 65, Charles Pinckney 64, Jay 1.
Had one of Burr’s electors voted for someone else, Jefferson would have won the Presidency outright.
Actually that did happen. See footnote d.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1800
The second vote should have been spoiled, and Burr should have been elected President (outright) with 73 votes, and Jefferson Vice President (outright) with 72 votes.
Was the argument made, I wonder?
Technically true, but the news media cover the the electoral vote. If someone votes contrary to how he or she has been pledged, the media Will report it especially if that vote could result in a cacandidate that was not on any popular ballot being made a candidate for consideration by the House.
Aren’t the votes secret until they are counted?
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.