Was Clinton hurt by no shows?

One state just voted to assign all of their electoral votes to the national winner of the popular vote.

The law would only go into effect if states representing a total of over 270 electoral votes elect similar laws.

Quote: Dalex64

One state just voted to assign all of their electoral votes to the national winner of the popular vote.

The law would only go into effect if states representing a total of over 270 electoral votes elect similar laws.

Which state, I googled it 4 ways and
got nothing. How can a state vote
to ignore the Constitution. Only
congress can do that.

Maryland, and what is unconstitutional about it?

The states can assign electors any way they want. That is where winner take all came from, and maine and at least one other state assigning electors by district.

I was wrong on one thing, though, they didn't just vote on that, they voted in 2007.

Quote: Dalex64

Maryland, and what is unconstitutional about it?

The states can assign electors any way they want. That is where winner take all came from, and maine and at least one other state assigning electors by district.

I was wrong on one thing, though, they didn't just vote on that, they voted in 2007.

11 states have passed it, totaling 165 of the EC votes. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ (you may need to read further in there than I have just done for any subtleties).

It's not unconstitutional, and Bob needs to read his constitution again. The electors have the power to vote, and the electors can be choosen by any method the state chooses. It's part of the rights of the states themselves, and not the Federal Government to define.

Quote:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists 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 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. But in choosing 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. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.[Note 1]

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.[1]

Quote: Dalex64

The states can assign electors any way they want. .

The sticky wicket is, the electors are repub or dem,
depending on who won the state. A dem elector
would usually never change his vote to repub, and
vice versa. They would submit another person
from their own party. So the chances of it ever
really effecting an election are tiny.

Quote: Dalex64

Maryland, and what is unconstitutional about it?

The states can assign electors any way they want. That is where winner take all came from, and maine and at least one other state assigning electors by district.

I was wrong on one thing, though, they didn't just vote on that, they voted in 2007.

Maryland did propose in 2007 changing the manner in which presidential electors are selected to correspond to the national vote, that proposal was never implemented (because other states did not also go along with it). If Maryland had chosen to follow this policy unilaterally, it might very well have been challenged in state courts.

James Madison's 1823 letter to George Hay, explains that few of the constitutional framers anticipated electors being chosen based on winner-take-all rules. President Madison proposed a constitutional amendment specifying how state's should specify how their electors should vote. As such a constitutional amendment was never implemented, Dalex64's comment is essentially correct.

I think Evenbob's comment is about "faithless electors" who would disagree with a new state law. There have only been 9 "faithless electors" in the last century. Twenty-one states do not have laws compelling their electors to vote for a pledged candidate. Twenty-nine states plus the District of Columbia have laws to penalize faithless electors, although these have never been enforced.

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson (February 13, 1892 - October 9, 1954) Justice (1941 - 1954) in an opiinion wrote that "no one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated what is implicit in its text that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices."

Legal Requirements or Pledges
Electors in these States are bound by State Law or by pledges to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

List of States with laws binding the votes of electors
ALABAMA � Party Pledge / State Law � § 17-19-2
ALASKA � Party Pledge / State Law � § 15.30.040; 15.30.070
CALIFORNIA � State Law � Elections Code § 6906
COLORADO � State Law � § 1-4-304
CONNECTICUT � State Law � § 9-175
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA � DC Pledge / DC Law � § 1-1001.08(g)
FLORIDA � Party Pledge / State Law � § 103.021(1)
HAWAII � State Law � §§ 14-26 to 14-28
MAINE � State Law � § 805
MARYLAND � State Law � § 8-505
MASSACHUSETTS � Party Pledge / State Law � Ch. 53, § 8, Supp.
MICHIGAN � State Law � �§168.47 (Violation cancels vote and Elector is replaced.)
MISSISSIPPI � Party Pledge / State Law � �§23-15-785(3)
MONTANA � State Law � § 13-25-304
NEBRASKA � State Law � § 32-714
NEW MEXICO � State Law � § 1-15-5 to 1-15-9 (Violation is a fourth degree felony.)
NORTH CAROLINA � State Law � § 163-212 (Violation cancels vote; elector is replaced and is subject to $500 fine.)
OHIO � State Law � § 3505.40
OKLAHOMA � State Pledge / State Law � 26, §§ 10-102; 10-109 (Violation of oath is a misdemeanor, carrying a fine of up to $1000.)
OREGON � State Pledge / State Law � § 248.355
SOUTH CAROLINA � State Pledge / State Law � § 7-19-80 (Replacement and criminal sanctions for violation.)
VERMONT � State Law � title 17, § 2732
VIRGINIA � State Law � § 24.2-202
WASHINGTON � Party Pledge / State Law � §§ 29.71.020, 29.71.040, Supp. ($1000 fine.)
WISCONSIN � State Law � § 7.75
WYOMING � State Law � §§ 22-19-106; 22-19-108

In the 2000 election: Washington, D.C. Elector Barbara Lett-Simmons, pledged for Democrats Al Gore and Joe Lieberman, cast no electoral votes as a protest of Washington D.C.'s lack of voting congressional representation. Had two of GW Bush's electors did something similar, the presidential election of 2000 could have been thrown into the House of Representatives as neither candidate would have a majority of EC votes. Although Republicans were the majority in the House in 2000, each state casts one vote for the Presidential Candidate.

Quote: Evenbob

The sticky wicket is, the electors are repub or dem,
depending on who won the state. A dem elector
would usually never change his vote to repub, and
vice versa. They would submit another person
from their own party. So the chances of it ever
really effecting an election are tiny.

Typically, each party selects a full slate of electors. In the same way winner takes all works now, where the winner of the state has their whole party's slate selected to be electors, the winner of the national vote would have their party's full slate of electors selected by the state.

The state has full control of who they select as electors. Again I point as an example to the states which do not use winner take all. As far as I know, they do not select electors just from the slate put up by the party that won the popular vote in that state - they take a number from both, or select on a district by district basis.

There would be no need for an elector to vote for someone outside their party.

Quote: Robert M. Alexander

In the hotly contested 2000 election, many electors were subjected to vigilant lobbying campaigns. Some received thousands of e-mails; at least one received a death threat.

A group called Citizens for a True Democracy, founded by two college seniors, published the contact information of 172 Republican electors online and asked people to urge them to put "patriotism before partisanship" and give their electoral votes to Al Gore. The group noted that it would have lobbied Democratic electors to give their votes to George W. Bush had he, rather than Gore, won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote.

Remarkably, four of the Republican electors expressed unease over Bush's victory and the recounts in Florida. On its face, this would not be cause for great concern. However, the 271 electoral votes amassed by the Bush-Cheney ticket barely pushed them over the 270-vote Electoral College majority needed to win the election.

Consequently, just two Republican abstentions would have denied the ticket of a majority of electoral votes and thrown the contest into the House of Representatives. Bush would still probably have been elected, but the Electoral College would have created yet another round of uncertainty.

As I said earlier, one of the DC electors abstained in 2000 to protest the District's status. DC was denied the right to vote in the first 44 elections, but has voted Democrat in the last 14 elections.

So there was some precedent for abstaining, and no penalty. As the House of Representatives was dominated by Republicans in 2000, they probably would have voted GW Bush in anyway.

Quote: Dalex64

Typically, each party selects a full slate of electors. In the same way winner takes all works now, where the winner of the state has their whole party's slate selected to be electors, the winner of the national vote would have their party's full slate of electors selected by the state.

The state has full control of who they select as electors. Again I point as an example to the states which do not use winner take all. As far as I know, they do not select electors just from the slate put up by the party that won the popular vote in that state - they take a number from both, or select on a district by district basis.

There would be no need for an elector to vote for someone outside their party.

How the state selects it's electors is up to the state itself, and they do not even need to be Rep or Dems pledged. It could be a body of electors who have all pledged to vote the way the nationwide popular vote goes. A little light reading goes a long way.

"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."

and from the details on wikipedia:

"Varying by state, electors may also be elected by state legislatures, or appointed by the parties themselves.".

Quote: Evenbob

How can a state vote to ignore the Constitution. Only congress can do that.

Nobody can ignore the constitution. They can just interpret it in different ways. I must assume that you are being sarcastic and not literal.



After his father died, Richard Johnson inherited Julia Chinn, an octoroon slave (one-eighth African, seven-eighths European in ancestry). Johnson began a long-term relationship with her and treated her as his common-law wife. They were prohibited from marrying because she was a slave. When Johnson was away from his Kentucky plantation, he authorized Chinn to manage his business affairs. She died in an epidemic of cholera in the summer of 1833, to Johnson's great grief. Johnson and Chinn had two daughters, Adaline (or Adeline) Chinn Johnson and Imogene Chinn Johnson, whom he acknowledged and gave his surname. He provided for their education. Both daughters married white men. Johnson gave them large farms as dowries from his own holdings.

In 1836, Johnson was the Democratic nominee for vice-president on a ticket with Martin Van Buren. Campaigning with the slogan "Rumpsey Dumpsey, Rumpsey Dumpsey, Colonel Johnson killed Tecumseh". Despite the fact that Julia was dead already for several years, Virginia's delegation to the Electoral College went against the state's popular vote and refused to endorse Johnson. Johnson fell one short of the electoral votes needed to secure his election. However, he was elected to the office by the Senate, which was dominated by Democrats.

An Octoroon slave who was only 1/8 African in descent, highlighted the sexual exploitation prevalent in slavery. Three generations involved children between slave owners and slaves, while the offspring remained slaves although Julia Chinn had only one African great grandparent. She was still a slave.

Quote: Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson (February 13, 1892 - October 9, 1954) Justice (1941 - 1954)

in an opinion wrote that "no one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated what is implicit in its text that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices."

So there is a historical precedent to a delegation deciding to ignore popular vote and fail to elect a person who they though was not qualified (even if the reasons are odious to modern thinking).