Replies

This idea of giving “10 days to look into fraud” is like “15 days to flatten the curve.” The original Constitution and the 12th Amendment were explicitly written to prevent states from stalling the presidential election process.

Not quite. The "original constitution", meaning Article I, Sec. 1, Clause 4 did not set the date for the Electoral College to meet. That was simply left for Congress to determine, as was when and how to count the votes. Nor did the "original constitution" set the time for the start and finish of the president's term. Washington was not inaugurated until April 30, 1789. By statute from 1792, the president's term was set to begin on March 4, 1793. That remained the law until the Twentieth Amendment was approved.

I must agree with Political Junkie Too. The Twentieth Amendment provides for a "caretaker" president should the electoral vote count hang for some reason. All of the confusion comes from state legislatures passing the buck to state executive branch officials to certify election results. The state legislatures have simply shirked their constitutional responsibility in this regard. It is certainly more reasonable to demand that they concur or object to the certification of presidential electors to end any needless confusion and delay.

I think your disagreement with what I posted is based on semantics more than anything else. In this ongoing conversation I am not distinguishing between something explicitly stated in the Constitution and something enacted into law by Congress under authority that has been given to Congress in the Constitution.

I must agree with Political Junkie Too. The Twentieth Amendment provides for a "caretaker" president should the electoral vote count hang for some reason.

I don't disagree with that. My contention here is about how we define a legitimate reason for the electoral vote to be inconclusive.

All of the confusion comes from state legislatures passing the buck to state executive branch officials to certify election results. The state legislatures have simply shirked their constitutional responsibility in this regard. It is certainly more reasonable to demand that they concur or object to the certification of presidential electors to end any needless confusion and delay.

That's an interesting perspective. If the legislatures have "shirked their responsibility" by having executive branch officials certify election results, then doesn't this mean that those responsibilities have effectively been "shirked" as soon as a legislature passes a statute that says the presidential electors are to be determined by popular vote?

In other words, what's the difference between having the legislature certify the result of a popular election for presidential electors and having the legislature appoint the electors directly? (I don't think this would be a bad thing, by the way.)