Replies

How is it you copy and paste so much but miss key details?

Did you intend to sandbag your point fallacy by word count?

The act of ‘rejecting’ Electors does not change the denominator which is 538. It merely adds to the ‘no vote’ column.

Your Adams example is not applicable to your error. You copied too much. There are words you radioed saying Adams prevailed in the House just as the 1804 ratified 12th Amendment requires.

Your error in logic would allow absurd scenarios such as all states protesting EC fraud and failing to certify Electors thereby tabulated as ‘no votes’ whereas DC certifies their 3 Electors. You would have the 3 DC Electors declared a majority.

The EC is 538 in number. Its votes are tabulated by candidates and no votes. Which ever candidate receives 270 or more is declared President. If no candidate receives 270, the election is taken under the 12th Amendment.

Did you intend to sandbag your point fallacy by word count?

The act of ‘rejecting’ Electors does not change the denominator which is 538. It merely adds to the ‘no vote’ column.

I said there is a difference between electors being rescinded/rejected, and never being appointed in the first place. If electors were never appointed, it's a pretty clear situation where the majority of electors appointed goes down. If they're rescinded or rejected, however, I would still argue the same. Those aren't 'no' votes, they're votes that aren't accepted at all. Same thing as not voting, which, from Congress's standpoint, is the same as a State not having appointed those electors. They aren;t a vote for a thirs party of "no one", they're simply not included as votes in any total accounting. If you're counting the number of red and blue tennis balls in a box, and you find a couple racquet/lacrosse balls, those aren't added to the total as 'other', they're just ignored. You aren't counting them.

Your Adams example is not applicable to your error. You copied too much. There are words you radioed saying Adams prevailed in the House just as the 1804 ratified 12th Amendment requires.

Copied too much? You asked for an example when a President won without winning the EC. I gave you one. If you wanted an example of a President winning only because of a State failing to appoint electors, there isn't one because that situation has never arisen before. The few elections with similar situations had too much of a tilt in the rest of the States to where the votes at issue made no difference to the outcome either way. 2020 is the first time this has happened.

Your error in logic would allow absurd scenarios such as all states protesting EC fraud and failing to certify Electors thereby tabulated as ‘no votes’ whereas DC certifies their 3 Electors. You would have the 3 DC Electors declared a majority.

And that's how the Constitution is written. If a State doesn't appoint electors, how could they count towards the number of electors appointed? This isn't fancy legalese lawyer-speak, it's pretty plain English. If the Constitution was intended to require a majority of the total possible EC votes, why would they include wording that says something different?There are very few times when the Constitution requires a majority vote of the total possible of a certain group, and it explicitly says so. In fact, there's an example right there in the 12th Amendment!
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.
Why says it requires a majority of all States, independent of how many are voting in this section, yet above, intend the same thing but instead say only of electors appointed? Those States aren't tabulated as "no votes", they're not-tabulated as "not votes". When Congress rejects a vote, they remove them before they're counted. They never get added to any total. If they were, all these double slates would mean that there's more than 538 EC votes, we just don't count them all. We could get 1076 EC votes if every State did that, heck, even more if you include third or fourth parties, but we're only gonna count 538 of them?

Your absurd scenario is not likely either - if every single State is protesting and not voting, there's much more going on and there'd be plenty of other things in play and not just DC picking the President.
Your absurd scenario here would mean "no" would win the election and we'd simply roll without a President for four years?