What if Kerry wins the electoral vote but the states' electors refuse to

cast their votes for him, and instead vote for * as a collective protest vote?

Is there anything in the Constitution or federal law that compels states to vote the will of the majority?

and constitutional that would be wrong for them to switch

decides to certify the Republican electors, instead of the Democrat ones, that could possibly happen, although I hope it's highly unlikely.

When you vote for president and vice-president, you are voting for a slate of electors for that office, not directly for those two candidates. And then, the state legislature certifies the slate selected. Remember that in 2000 the Republican dominated Florida legislature was making it crystal clear that they did not care how any recount would turn out, they would certify the Republican slate. Conceivably, it could happen again. Just look and see which states likely to go for Kerry have Republican dominated legislature.

I've been saying for some time not that this could be one of only many plans to steal the election.

If that were to happen, I have no doubt there would be massive protests, and quite likely many of them would be armed and violent in character. Bush* doesn't have the balls to risk winding up with that scenario, IMO.

in this case those people would be attempting to undo a constitutional act. The constitution ultimately leaves it up to a state legislature to decide how and who may be an elector.

I would not support any protests in that case, because quite frankly once we dismiss the constitution the nation is over. The founders gave the legislatures this authority - end of story for me.

I WOULD support an amendment to abolish the electoral college, however. Though until that time I believe the government should operate as the constitution says it should.

Best way to prevent this is to vote for state legislatures who want electors to be decided by a vote in the state.

I'm sorry, but if Kerry won both the popular vote AND the electoral count, but Republicans rigged it for him to lose anyway, that would be the end of this nation.

It's a fact. They do not want to go down that road because that would be the end.

edited to add: I would also add that rigging the election through the GOP controlled state legislatures can only be described as the ultimate "nuclear MADD" option.

if he won the electoral count he SHOULD become president. Should something happen that prevents that it would not be constitutional. (I believe there is a method for the congress to reject the electoral count and take it the house, but I'm not entirely sure on what grounds that could be done.)

I was talking more about if a legislature decides its electors will go one way independent of a state vote (which would be constitutional). Certainly preventing someone from taking office after winning the electoral votes would not be legal, and I would not support that.

It would be the end of the nation if the state legislatures went against the will of the people and handed it to Bush.

That is the nuclear mutually assurred destruction option in this. Do it, and blood will flow in the streets like water in a downpour. I guarantee it.

it is acceptable to violently attempt to undo a constitutional act?

So if it is OK to resort to violence for one constitutional act - what about another? Say congress passes a bill a mob doesn't like. Or is it just you that gets to decide what sections of the constitution are followed and what sections are not?

Further, it's unlikely a legislature would alter its current policy of deciding electors anyway. (currently by state wide popular vote in all 50 states) I doubt the election will be close enough for a few red states to have an impact on it anyway.

the will of the people.

If Florida goes for Kerry, but the Florida Legislature rejects the vote count and sends Bush's electors instead of Kerry's, IT WILL BE CIVIL WAR!!!!!

And this time will make the last one seem like a playground spat between two third graders.

The legality of the move by the legislature will make no difference to the eventual outcome. The people will revolt. It is that simple.

You know, I don't support it when the regime ignores the constitution and I certainly won't support it when you do.

The only thing that will bring civil war are those that decide they are above the constitution. The repubs decided they were in 2000. It's not alright for them to break the rules, but apparently you think it is ok for you to. What makes you special?

Here's an idea. There are two things you can do if a section of the constitution written by the founders bothers you

1. Attempt to violently overthrow the government under the constitution they wrote.

OR

2. Organize and peacefully amend the constitution as the founders provided.

One of these options is legal. One of them is not.

Unfortunately if there is any legislature around that would decide to use their constitutional ability to chose electors themselves the only blame lies ON THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR THOSE LEGISLATURES. Believe it or not in a representative democracy people elect legislatures to represent them in an assembly. If people voted for legislatures that would decide their own electors as permitted by the constitution yet they don't want them to do that it would be 1. Pretty stupid of those who voted for them and 2. Should remind them to vote more carefully next time.

Let's also keep in mind that this is not an option explicitly available to repubs. Let's say a repub legilsature DID do this - what is stopping a dem legislature in one or more states from doing the same thing to counteract that repub legislature? Yea, believe it or not there are actual LEGAL WAYS to *defeat the repubs at their own game* besides betraying the constitution.

It would require an immediate repeal of EXISTING law in order to steal the election in this fashion.

The people would not stand for it, regardless of how "principled" you make such a blatant theft of an election sound.

but it's legal under the constitution.

And yes, it would require an immediate repeal of existing state law which is partly why the whole idea is far fetched to begin with.

I notice you ignore my point about us doing the same thing to counteract it. I guess a more reasoned and legal solution (instead of immediatly going to the option of starting a bloodly civil war like the far right does everytime something doesn't go there way) was passed over. Not surprising.

including in the case of Florida.

So your high and mighty bullshit about this issue is just that, bullshit.

Coming from the guy who thinks he can decide when the constitution is applicable. Ironic.

And guess what? If it violates "most" states constitutions then the repubs are fucked aren't they? Yet for some reason you still concern your self with a conspiracy theory you apparently knew couldn't happen.

For those concerned with this I would like to know what states with repub controlled legislatures (that are likely to go blue) have a constitutional provision regarding a popular vote deciding electors. According to walt it would be in "most cases". If walt is correct then this is hysteria over nothing considering it is HIGHLY unlikely (dare I say near impossible) any of those states could amend the state constitution in time.

n/t

would violate United States Code, towhit:

Title 3.

Chapter 1.

Section 1. - Time of appointing electors

The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President

and...

Section 5. - Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors

If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned


So your claim that the state legislatures can legally steal the election in this manner has been officially DEBUNKED!

such an action of a state would violate federal law, as well as "most states" constitutions why didn't you just come out with it to begin with to spare us all pointless debate? Or did you enjoy egging things on?

I had to find the citation. That takes time

You could have done the same.

I was unaware a federal statue existed to regulate it.

If you "suspected it" you should have said so, and we could have waited for you to find it.

Had to go to the U.S. Code didn't you, huh?

Didn't take the time to research it did you?

Oh well, they cannot do it legally, but they sure as hell can go out and try to convince the masses it would be legal before trying to steal it, can't they?

It has long been known a state legislature decides how electors are chosen. At least I was arguing it in good faith, unlike someone who kept it up while refraining from mentioning suspicions of the existence of a federal statue.

What you have proven is that a state legislature could not chose electors at the last minute. Good for you - now we can put more paranoia to rest.

Unlike others, I attempt to not state things unless I have the facts.

I don't think he's saying such a response would be legal, I think he's saying such a response would result regardless of its legality.

I'm not espousing either view, just clarifying my understanding of his point.

Or something to that effect. Thomas Jefferson said that.

Didn't they promise to do something of the sort in 2000 if the Supremes didn't hand it to *?

but with doubt about the actual outcome of the voting, it could have flown then.

If Kerry wins both the popular vote AND the elctoral count, but still loses, I hate to think of what would hapopen in this country.

Go out and get some fresh air...relax...hike...find a relaxing hobby.

usually loyal volunteers and elected officials

That's what'll happen.

.eom

Jeb to do that IF Florida would win the election for *

they are pledged to represent.

In fact, there have been eight electors in history who have not voted the way they were supposed to.

Here in Illinois they are not required to vote according to the popular vote majority. However, in other states they are.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for his electors. His electors aren't going to switch. I believe the state legislators approve the electors...this is where there's a small potential for monkey business. Remember how Fl. legislature threatened to send it's own slate of Repubs if Gore had been given his electors?

Such a maneuver would (or at least should) generate a firestorm.

the way they are supposed to.

156 in history have not.

http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/faithless.htm

We don't need our time focusing on highly unlikely scenarios....

unlikely in 2000. You just can't turn your back considering the importance of "winning" this year.

This is 2004. New election. We COULD have another cliffhanger that is decided by a single state and that state COULD be Florida but it is not likely. Yes, the Florida legislature was ready to submit their own set of Bush electors but had the clusterfuck known as the "butterfly ballot" not occured Gore would have won Florida outright on election night and the Florida legislature would have done nothing. The Pubs did steal the election (most effectively with the "felon" purge prior to election day) but they got a little help from Lady Luck and some election official incompetence.

The electors are pledged to their candidate. The only way I could ever see any of them change their vote is if the election came down to 1 electoral vote making the difference in the election. Then, I think bribe money would take over. Odds of that 1 vote diff in the electoral college is so remote, it's just not going to happen.

Article II.

Section 1.

Clause 2: 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 underlined portion is the loophole. All state legislatures have passed laws for the determination of electors via vote. Unfortunately, if the legislature collectively does not like the way the vote turns out, those laws can be repealed and the legislature can decide.

It takes some major political machinations, but the Florida legislature was prepared to send Bush's electors regardless of the outcome of a recount in 2000. Knowing how evil these bastards are, I would not put it past them to be prepared to steal the election even if Kerry wins both the popular vote AND the electoral count by the results of the election. I call this the 'Nuclear Option' because of the 'Mutually Assurred Destruction' in such a move.

It would be chaos and civil war if it happened, and would show just how evil the GOP really is, IMO.

n/t

Personally, I consider the refusal of an elector to vote for their candidate to be political treason of the highest order. But it HAS happened. I sure as hell hope that the Kerry campaign has done a better job of screening their electors than the Gore campaign did. Seriously, does anyone doubt that if the electoral college is deadlocked 269-269, or even if Kerry wins the electoral vote by a narrow margin, that the Bush campaign won't pull out all the stops to convince one or two electors to switch sides?

Had a few of Shrubco's electors abstained, the House could have instilled him AFTER the SCOTUS sElected him!

why would the electors he choose do to something like that just as a protest vote?

electors.

http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/faithless.htm

As of the 2000 election, there has never been a change in the outcome of an election due to faithless electors.