To: areafiftyone
Any chance that an elector may vote differently than the state? I'm sure the Rats would love to see it, but I haven't heard about the possibility.
5 posted on
12/13/2004 8:32:31 AM PST by
I'm ALL Right!
(Welcome to my addiction.)
To: I'm ALL Right!
One or two might vote differently but it won't change the outcome.
8 posted on
12/13/2004 8:33:15 AM PST by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: I'm ALL Right!
10 posted on
12/13/2004 8:34:49 AM PST by
areafiftyone
(Democrats = the hamster is dead but the wheel is still spinning)
To: I'm ALL Right!
It's possible, some states have laws that require electors to vote for the winner, but some don't. West Virginia doesn't and a Republican elector, said before the election that if Bush won, he might not vote for Bush, After the election he said that Bush won by such a large margin, he might go ahead and vote for Bush. In 2000 some of the rats tried to get info on electors and get them to switch or not vote, a Dem elector from D.C. decided not to vote in 2000
18 posted on
12/13/2004 8:38:56 AM PST by
jbwbubba
(Will we be a nation based on hate or Faith)
To: I'm ALL Right!
Any chance that an elector may vote differently than the state? I'm sure the Rats would love to see it, but I haven't heard about the possibility. The electors can vote however they want. If all 538 wanted to elect Howard Dean and Dennis "The Lawn Gnome" Kucinich, they could do that. However, it isn't going to happen. The electors have been picked because they will vote for whomever carried their state. While there might be one elector who casts a protest vote (as a D.C. elector did in 2000), the chances of the election being altered by the electoral college is between very slim and none.
To: I'm ALL Right!
The West Virginia GOP elector has said that he may not use his vote for Bush, that would mean the final total is 285.
To: I'm ALL Right!; All
Yes, but if it were to occur, the House can challenge those faithless electors.
37 posted on
12/13/2004 8:47:16 AM PST by
Perdogg
(W stands for Winner)
To: I'm ALL Right!
No Legal Requirement
Electors in these States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate:
ARIZONA - 10 Electoral Votes ARKANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes DELAWARE - 3 Electoral Votes GEORGIA - 15 Electoral Votes IDAHO - 4 Electoral Votes ILLINOIS - 21 Electoral Votes INDIANA - 11 Electoral Votes IOWA - 7 Electoral Votes KANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes KENTUCKY - 8 Electoral Votes LOUISIANA - 9 Electoral Votes MINNESOTA - 10 Electoral Votes |
MISSOURI - 11 Electoral Votes NEW HAMPSHIRE - 4 Electoral Votes NEW JERSEY - 15 Electoral Votes NEW YORK - 31 Electoral Votes NORTH DAKOTA - 3 Electoral Votes PENNSYLVANIA - 21 Electoral Votes RHODE ISLAND - 4 Electoral Votes SOUTH DAKOTA - 3 Electoral Votes TENNESSEE - 11 Electoral Votes TEXAS - 34 Electoral Votes UTAH - 5 Electoral Votes WEST VIRGINIA - 5 Electoral Votes |
Legal Requirements or Pledges
Electors in these States are bound by State Law or by pledges to cast their vote for a specific candidate:
- ALABAMA - 9 Electoral Votes
- Party Pledge / State Law - § 17-19-2
- ALASKA - 3 Electoral Votes
- Party Pledge / State Law - § 15.30.040; 15.30.070
- CALIFORNIA - 55 Electoral Votes
- State Law - § 6906
- COLORADO - 9 Electoral Votes
- State Law - § 1-4-304
- CONNECTICUT - 7 Electoral Votes
- State Law § 9-175
- DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA - 3 Electoral Votes
- DC Pledge / DC Law - § 1-1312(g)
- FLORIDA - 27 Electoral Votes
- Party Pledge / State Law - § 103.021(1)
- HAWAII - 4 Electoral Votes
- State Law - §§ 14-26 to 14-28
- MAINE - 4 Electoral Votes
- State Law - § 805
- MARYLAND - 10 Electoral Votes
- State Law - § 20-4
- MASSACHUSETTS - 12 Electoral Votes
- Party Pledge / State Law - Ch. 53, § 8, Supp.
- MICHIGAN - 17 Electoral Votes
- State Law - §168.47 (Violation cancels vote and elector is replaced).
- MISSISSIPPI - 6 Electoral Votes
- Party Pledge / State Law - §23-15-785(3)
- MONTANA - 3 Electoral Votes
- State Law - §13-25-104
- NEBRASKA - 5 Electoral Votes
- State Law - § 32-714
- NEVADA - 5 Electoral Votes
- State Law - § 298.050
- NEW MEXICO - 5 Electoral Votes
- State Law - § 1-15-5 to 1-15-9 (Violation is a fourth degree felony.)
- NORTH CAROLINA - 15 Electoral Votes
- State Law - § 163-212 (Violation cancels vote; elector is replaced and is subject to $500 fine.)
- OHIO - 20 Electoral Votes
- State Law - § 3505.40
- OKLAHOMA - 7 Electoral Votes
- State Pledge / State Law - 26, §§ 10-102; 10-109 (Violation of oath is a misdemeanor, carrying a fine of up to $1000.)
- OREGON - 7 Electoral Votes
- State Pledge / State Law - § 248.355
- SOUTH CAROLINA - 8 Electoral Votes
- State Pledge / State Law - § 7-19-80 (Replacement and criminal sanctions for violation.)
- VERMONT - 3 Electoral Votes
- State Law - title 17, § 2732
- * VIRGINIA - 13 Electoral Votes
- State Law - § 24.1-162 (Virginia statute may be advisory - "Shall be expected" to vote for nominees.)
- WASHINGTON - 11 Electoral Votes
- Party Pledge / State Law - §§ 29.71.020, 29.71.040, Supp. ($1000 fine.)
- WISCONSIN - 10 Electoral Votes
- State Law - § 7.75
- WYOMING - 3 Electoral Votes
- State Law - §§ 22-19-106; 22-19-108
44 posted on
12/13/2004 8:54:55 AM PST by
michigander
(The Constitution only guarantees the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.)
To: I'm ALL Right!
"Any chance that an elector may vote differently than the state?"
There is an elector in North Dakota who is a member of the Constitution Party and who HATES Bush. It's very possible that their will go to someone else. I hope not not, but you heard it here first.
To: I'm ALL Right!; jbwbubba; michigander
It is
possible that an elector could vote differently than his/her state, but in practice it is infrequent. Seems like the 1948 election was the last time that any serious # of votes were cast in a manner different from the state (Strom Thurmond's run for Prez as a Dixiecrat).
As bubba & michigander pointed out, some states have laws requiring the elector to vote w/ the state. Those laws, however, are of questionable constitutionality - the Constitution (and Framers) didn't anticipate political parties the way we have them now, and fully expected the electors to use their best judgment to elect the Prez & VP.
67 posted on
12/13/2004 9:11:36 AM PST by
Ready4Freddy
(Carpe Sharpei !)
To: I'm ALL Right!
ny chance that an elector may vote differently than the state?There's another thread around here that said that one 'rat elector voted for John Edwards rather than Kerry. (snicker)
267 posted on
12/13/2004 3:13:10 PM PST by
alnick
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson