Late Voting Question/Thread

self | 9/8/2020 | LS

[CodeToad]

I don’t think you understand the difference between force and punish for noncompliance.

[CodeToad]

“Please explain how you force a state to submit electors.”

No cop can force you to drive the speed limit but they can punish you for not doing so. It is called ‘incentives’.

[GOPJ]

from this site: https://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/

https://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/

Sorry - it’s where you were quoted...

[LS]

Read my original post.

There is NO punishment in the law or Constitution for failure to submit. A SoS may be fined $1000.00.

That’s it. So how do you force someone to do something without punishment?

(Cop example bad cuz you are trying to prevent people FROM doing something)

[LS]

Sure do. Neither the Constitution nor the statute law has any punishment for withholding electors.

[CodeToad]

“Sure do. Neither the Constitution nor the statute law has any punishment for withholding electors.”

Not specifically, but other laws can kick in to hold them accountable.

Insurrection and sedition, for instance, do not specifically state ever single possible act, but you certainly can be held accountable to those laws.

[LS]

Good luck.

Isn’t a court in the country that in this age would render a sedition verdict. ESPECIALLY when no specific charges can be brought on the action.

[philman_36]

States that fail to certify their elections in time for the Electoral College do not participate because they failed to appoint Electors.

Again, if they fail to certify the electors then the process simply moves to the House and Senate with each picking the POTUS and VPOTUS respectively.
Each State will get to participate (just not in the EC aspect of it any longer) when the matter goes to the House and Senate. (see below)

...I cited the parts of the Constitution that shows the Electoral College requires a majority of appointed Electors, not a majority of *maximum possible* Electors.
You cited this...
The 12th amendment says "The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed..."
The "appointing" is done by Title 3 § 3. You're mistaking what it is saying.
Here is the rest of that which you didn't post...

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; (that is where you cut it off, but it continues) and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.
AGAIN...the number appointed is, by law, 538. The *maximum possible* electors is the same 538. (See Title 3 § 3)
I don't see anything anywhere stating that the number of electoral votes needed to win can be changed to 260. There is a set formula (see link below to USC 3) for determining the number of electors and the number of votes from the electors needed to win. Show me something...anything...that supports your view that the number of votes needed to win drops to 260.

You might also want to look at USC 3 which governs Presidential elections.
TITLE 3 — THE PRESIDENT § 3 - 5 are of major relevance. It isn't just the Constitution that is involved.

§ 4. Vacancies in electoral college
Each State may, by law, provide for the filling of any vacancies which may occur in its college of electors when such college meets to give its electoral vote.

It doesn't say the State has to fill any vacancies, it says it may.

§ 5. Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors
If any State shall have provided, by laws en-acted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.
Pretty interesting info.

So here is what you didn't cite from Article II of the Constitution...
Article II Clause III (snip)

The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. The number "appointed" is 538 (See Title 3 § 3).

If you don't have enough (for whatever reason) of "a Majority" of those 538 votes (which would be the 270 required by law), the House and Senate decide the election.

[Political Junkie Too]

1. The part I omitted in the 12th amendment is irrelevant because it affects what happens after Electors vote, not the initial appointment of electors.
2. US Code is inferior to the Constitution via the supremacy clause in Article Vi.
3. Sections 3-5 in your citation describe filling vacancies after Electors have been appointed.
4. Section 2 makes my case:
   • § 2. Failure to make choice on prescribed day
     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.

By law, the state legislatures may directly appoint Electors to prevent their state from being absent from the Electoral College should it arise that chaos prevents the normal process of elections from determining a result.

-PJ

[philman_36]

The part I omitted in the 12th amendment is irrelevant because it affects what happens after Electors vote, not the initial appointment of electors.
OMG! Electors are appointed thusly... § 3. Number of electors
The number of electors shall be equal to the number of Senators and Representatives to which the several States are by law entitled at the time when the President and Vice President to be chosen come into office; except, that where no apportionment of Representatives has been made after any enumeration, at the time of choosing electors, the number of electors shall be according to the then existing apportionment of Senators and Representatives.(June 25, 1948, ch. 644, 62 Stat. 672.) Article II Clause 2
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

US Code is inferior to the Constitution via the supremacy clause in Article Vi.
Well I just showed you how Article II Clause 2 explains how electors are appointed!

Sections 3-5 in your citation describe filling vacancies after Electors have been appointed.

WHAT?!

§ 3. Number of electors
§ 4. Vacancies in electoral college
§ 5. Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors

Section 2 makes my case:
No, it doesn't.
...for the purpose of choosing electors...
Choosing electors isn't the same thing as appointing electors.
The State of * is appointed 2 electors. The State of * chooses Mr. Brown and Mr. Jones as electors.
That's making MY point!

By law, the state legislatures may directly appoint Electors to prevent their state from being absent from the Electoral College should it arise that chaos prevents the normal process of elections from determining a result.

Now you're contradicting what you JUST said. Again, choosing electors isn't the same thing as appointing electors.

[Political Junkie Too]

Choosing electors isn't the same thing as appointing electors.

I'm done.

-PJ

[philman_36]

538 open/allotted positions are filled by choosing people for those appointed spots. The names of the electors are known before the election...like Her Thighness!
Each political Party knows in advance how many people they need because the number of them has already been appointed and they only had to be chosen.
All the State does now, basically, is say "Party X" won the election (certifies the election) and the pre-chosen Party X electors get to cast their vote.

So back to the starting point...You have yet to state how the number of electoral votes needed to win an election can drop below 270.

[Political Junkie Too]

You have to put yourself in the mind of a reader of the plain text in 1787. Twisting the meaning of appoint and choose would get you funny looks.

The party slate of electors are not appointed in the Constitutional sense. They are state party insiders, mostly county chairs and precinct captains who were vetted by the party and the candidate to be included in the slate.

However, those slates are methods selected by the state legislatures in Article II Section 1 of the Constitution. It doesn't have to be that way, it's just the way 48 states have chosen to do it. The Constitution is agnostic to the way the legislature choose to do it, which is why the language of "appointing" is in the Constitution. It supersedes what the states do.

In Maine and Nebraska, where they appoint electors by Congressional district, you can't say that someone is appointed solely by being selected by the party because the whole slate does not go to the Electoral College. If Maine's CD-2 goes Republican while CD-1 and the state's popular vote go Democrat, only the Republican Elector from Maine CD-2 is appointed. You can't say that the entire Republican slate constituted appointment.

What if a state chose to make Electors individually elected in each Congressional district? First, would you agree that Article II Section 1 gives the state legislature the power to select the method such that candidates for Electors can run in each district as separate races? In this case, you might see three or four people in each district run for Elector. You cannot say that a person is appointed yet just because they are running, yet you are saying that by simply being on the candidate's designated slate.

Just for grins, would you say that Article II Section 1 allows state legislatures to decide to make the top citizen property taxpayer in each Congressional district an Elector? In this case, there are no elections, just direct appointments (there's that word again).

The electors aren't considered appointed until they win the election, either as a slate, as a separate Congressional district, as a race all their own, or by direct appointment by the legislature.

-PJ

[philman_36]

Twisting the meaning of appoint and choose would get you funny looks.
I'm not twisting the meaning of anything.
Are you being obtuse on purpose?

This is as simple of an explanation as I can find...
The Electoral College

There are currently 538 members of the Electoral College. Each state gets as many electors as its number of representatives in Congress. So, each state has at least three electors, because each state has two Senators and at least one member of the House of Representatives. Representation in the House is determined by the U.S. Census, conducted every 10 years. Snip... There are 435 members of the House of Representatives, 100 Senators, and three representatives from the District of Columbia. So, there are 538 electors.

For example...What happens if Puerto Rico, or any of the other territories, becomes a State?
The number of apportioned electors increases because the formula is set!
It's not that hard to understand!
No twisting, no need to take the plain text of the Constiution out of context.

[philman_36]

What happens if Puerto Rico, or any of the other territories, becomes a State?

The number of apportioned electors increases because the formula is set!

The new electors are appointed to the new State by that formula.

[Political Junkie Too]

Are you being obtuse on purpose?

I told you I would engage you as long as there are no ad hominems.

-PJ

[MHGinTN]

‘will get you funny looks’ ... that was you after asserting that the poster was not using the proper definition of two terms. I’d say you like sneaky ad hom so you can claim you are above ad homs.

[philman_36]

Are you being obtuse on purpose?

I told you I would engage you as long as there are no ad hominems.

Well, I'm sorry, but I don't know what else to think!
You're behaving in a manner that can only be described as being obtuse (slow to understand).
You claim I'm trying to twist words yet you've twisted words beyond recognition and even when I show proof of what you've done you go right back and use the words in the same twisted manner in which you had before.

Care to address my Puerto Rico example? Would those new electoral votes be appointed to the new State in accord to the Constitution and United State Code?
I guess we'll get to see if you are or aren't being intentionally obtuse.