[Mr Rogers]

They simply assumed your definition was wrong. If they thought it right, they could not have certified him to be put on the ballot or the election.

[Las Vegas Ron]

If they thought it right, they could not have certified him to be put on the ballot or the election.

Bwwwaaaahahahahaa, did you post that with a straight face???

I have to go clean the spit of my monitor now, thanks.

[Cboldt]

-- they could not have certified him to be put on the ballot or the election. --

Technically, the voter is choosing electors who must submit evidence of being qualified to be an elector. The names of the parties' nominees are provided by the states as a convenience, and AFAIK, it is the parties that provide an attestation of qualification as to their candidates.

There have been occasions where clearly unqualified candidate's names appear on the presidential election ballots - out and out foreigners!

But even if the states screw up in the "convenience name," that has no direct legal effect beyond misleading the voters. The people are voting for a PARTY when it comes to the presidential election.

The entity with the duty to discern qualification of the person with a sufficient number of electoral votes is Congress.

[Uncle Chip]

They simply assumed your definition was wrong.

SHOW ME where they said that ---

YOU are the one doing the ASSUMING, not them.

And you know what happens to those who ASSUME --