Replies

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.)

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?

Not at all. Most states award presidential electors on a winner take all basis. In Maine and Nebraska votes are based on congressional districts. Now if the SoS or governor of one of these states were to have decided that because of Covid he was going to award the state's EV on a winner take all basis, that would be contrary to statute. That's not executing the statutory law. How are executive orders contrary to statutory law negating signature requirements on mail-in ballots, creating drop boxes, ignoring chain of custody requirements, etc any different?

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.)

It's about the plenary power of the state legislatures under the U.S. Constitution to appoint the electors, and also about accountability to the state's citizens. What we've seen is that massive fraud in large cities was determinative in the past election, and maybe also in state elections preceding it. They likely cheated to get Dem executive branch officials "elected" in swing states with Republican dominated legislatures in 2018-19. It's harder to rig state legislative elections in enough districts to make a difference than it is to just stuff the ballot box in a few large counties to steal statewide elections for governor, AG, SoS, etc.

I would like to see the Constitution amended to require the lower house of the state legislature, (except Nebraska which doesn't have one), to certify the election results. That would end a lot of nonsense, because voters could hold people accountable better. This is all part of the larger problem of legislatures keeping laws vague and fuzzy, which feeds the modern regulatory state marked by an over abundance of executives making regulatory rules, and courts involving themselves as well. The election was tainted with that as well.