Replies

I was curious about this, and after some googling found this web site which discusses the National Popular Vote plan to get around the Electoral College without the formality of a Constitutional Amendment. Now let me make clear that I am totally opposed to their plan, and most of what is written there is irrelevant to the current discussion.

But one small section on that web site is relevant: They point out that if Florida had failed to finish its recount in 2000 by the Safe Harbor date, it would then have fallen under Section 2 of Title 3 of the United States Code:

"Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct."

The Florida legislature was prepared to ratify Bush's slate of Electors if the U.S. Supreme Court hadn't stepped in to end the recount. However, if neither of those things had happened, and if Florida had "failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law" (because of an incomplete tally to determine the correct set of Electors) and thus had putatively failed to appoint Electors, the total number of Electors in the country would have been reduced by 25 (Florida's number). And in that case Al Gore would have had a majority of the remaining number of Electors and would have been elected President.

If Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania were all to fail to complete required recounts by the Safe Harbor date, and if their Republican-controlled legislatures were to fail to take any further action to appoint Electors for Trump, such that none of those 46 Electoral votes were cast, that would leave Trump with 260 votes and Hillary with 232 votes. In that case the total number of appointed Electors would be 492, and a majority would be 246. So Trump would still win.