If a state fails to satisfy its own laws for appointing electors, then it fails to appoint any electors. And the Constitution only requires a majority of votes by appointed Electors, not a majority of votes from all Electors who could have been appointed, but weren't because one or more states failed to do so.
Article II, section 1: "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.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. 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. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President "
“Complete and utter bullshit.
If a state fails to satisfy its own laws for appointing electors, then it fails to appoint any electors. And the Constitution only requires a majority of votes by appointed Electors, not a majority of votes from all Electors who could have been appointed, but weren’t because one or more states failed to do so.
Article II, section 1: “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.”
“Complete and utter bullshit.” Well that’s one way of putting it, but the OP seems to differ.
If it makes you feel any better, that’s what I thought as well. It seems the word `whole’ has a different meaning than we would put to it.
“If a state fails to satisfy its own laws for appointing electors, then it fails to appoint any electors.”
State laws are null and void on this matter.
A unanimous Supreme Court ruling affirmed the clear point that no state can change in any way the authority of the legislature under the Constitution to appoint electors.
Note that that power is given NOT to the state but specifically to the legislature.