Replies

If a state fails to appoint the electors the requisite total of electors is still there. The state simply failed in its duty to produce its share thus failed to vote. Your example would only be true if the state left the country. The Constitution still leaves a solution - the House !

If a State fails to appoint electors, then the "whole number of electors appointed" drops by that number. If they meant for it to be out of the total number of electors, then why add the term "appointed" to that sentence? That would then change the sentence to mean something other than what it clearly says. The Constitution needs no solution if States don't appoint electors - their votes simply aren't included, because they offered no votes. It's just like the House/Senate: the Constitution requires a quorum of 50%+1 to do business, and SCOTUS confirmed in US v Ballin that a majority of the quorum was sufficient to pass bills, it did not require a majority of the full House/Senate.

The race can still go to the House - if there's an exact tie between the top two, OR if enough third parties get EC votes to where the 'winner' fails to gain a majority of the EC votes. A simple plurality is not good enough.

Show me the Constitution where that’s correct.

"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 for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; 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."