Posted on 04/15/2016 7:09:14 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
As a contested Republican convention grows increasingly likely and the rift between Donald Trump and mainstream Republicans widens into a chasm, the possibility that the losing faction at the convention could mount an independent bid for the presidency remains very real. Such a split in the Republican electorate would normally prove disastrous in a general election, and even the threat of such a run could provide Trump with convention-floor leverage.
In a recent article, I proposed that the only way to ensure that such a split does not guarantee Democratic victory would be for Republican-controlled states to change their selection of electoral votes from a plurality election to a runoff system.
But even if making this switch would be good policy, it must also be good law. If states are to seriously consider this option, the case must be made that such a switch is both constitutional and compatible with federal law. This article will explain why it is both.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Excuse me. All the states have to do is change the rules after the game has been played?
Excuse me. Are you retarded?
So this clown suggests that states change their laws to protect a political party for national office.
Let’s just waste time, resources, and money to play games. What do the voters in said states think about this?
I am so over political parties in this country. It’s clear it has become religion to many.
Well, I am corresponding with you.
Are you retarded? Or did you just not read the article?
On the other hand, perhaps it might be the mechanism to rid our party once and for all of the establishment parasites once and for all!
Your comment had absolutely nothing to do with the article, so a reasonable assumption would be that you are a moron.
States could theoretically do this.
The constitution indicates that states shall choose presidential electors in a manner decided by the state.
The point is, a state legislature could change the way electors are chosen.
48 out of 50 states choose electors on a winner take all basis, where the statewide winner of the popular vote gets all of the electors.
There is not even a legal requirement that states have a popular vote for president, to choose presidential electors.
It surprises some people to learn, that you do not have a constitutional right to vote in a presidential election.
The manner in which your state chooses members to the electoral college is completely up to each state legislature.
Leftists like Michael Moore keep pushing this idea, so I presume that at the end of the day it ain’t good for our side.
A more reasonable conclusion would be that you are incapable of defending a ludicrous proposition that election rules be changed after primaries have been held and that, instead of even attempting to support the idea with anything approaching civil discourse, you thrash about like a wounded bird.
I see you struggle with the English language.
No worries. We have flash cards for that.
Legal to diddle the allegiance of electors but why? The 12th Amendment already contains provisions for a 3-way contest. Maybe the author should go read that before having each state change their own rules for elector selection. After all, there are 26 states that have faithless elector laws that bind them to the state voters’ choice.
I think what he means is that if no candidate gets a majority of votes in a particular state during the general election, instead of awarding the EC votes to whoever got the plurality, then a runoff would be held between the two top vote getters for the EC votes.
Many people treat politics like they are cheerleaders for a sports team. No objective thinking at all. You could ask a Democrat if a woman should be able to abort in the 4th trimester and they will reflexively say yes. It really saddens me to see all the Trump and Cruz fanboys on this site. They are politicians! Experience should teach us we should view them and all politicians with skepticism.
It saddens me too. What a bunch of stiffs to choose from, how anyone can be enthusiastic about this hot garbage is simply beyond me.
Freegards
The runoff election used to be common… but can work against the “establishment”. So many state parties (GOP and Dem) changed their election laws to where 50%+1 was no longer the winning formula. Such was how Clinton was elected in 1992, with only 43% of the popular vote but 370 Electoral votes. No one should win any election (IMHO) with less than 50%+1. One of the (lame) reasons for eliminating runoffs was cost... clearly much money was “saved” in the 2000 Florida recount.
That may, or may not, be good idea in theory, but the election cycle has already begun. A state which sought to change the rules in the middle of the election cycle would be handing the election to the Democrat candidate on a silver platter.
It is all just a mental exercise because I doubt that any states would be able to pass such legislation before the general election.
Let them try. Double secret probation will cause Trump to third party.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.