In whether/when states “appoint.”
If they didn’t “finish counting,” they would immediately go to the courts to insist they are going to “appoint.”
Moreover, keep reading: there are NO penalties for a state that fails to turn in its electors by Dec. 14!! Both the Senate and the Archivist can “request,” but no penalty, And another clause says that the district judge in that district can “request” but no penalty. There is also mushiness in the Bush v. Gore ruling on the Dec. 14 date.
So it is absolutely not clear what happens to a state that doesn’t submit its slate. And you can be darn sure that 100 D lawyers right now have briefs on what the definition of “appointed” is.
The 12 amendment clearly states a candidate needs to win "a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed," yet you don't respond to this part in your replies to me.
This means that the threshold is reduced from 270 by half the count of Electors from each state that fails to appoint.
Can't you see this? It does NOT mean that states can drop out but the candidate must still reach 270.
RE: the definition of "appointed." We all know that a plain reading means that it's the people who participate. You can't participate if you're not appointed to the role. It would be the same definition that's used in Presidential appointments and Senate confirmations. Someone is named to a position -- that's an "appointment."
Appointment to the Electoral College is when the slate of named Electors is certified. It is NOT a "slot," it's an actual named person, just like elsewhere in the Constitution.
-PJ
So there is plenty of precedent in the Constitution on the meaning of "appointment."
It is the named person to fill a role. The same would naturally be true of Electors to the Electoral College.
-PJ