Faithless Electors (how they will steal the election this time)

[Sophree]

Heads up- Anyone with connections to the Kerry-Edwards campaign and their legal staff- Please tell them to start preparing legal and public arguments for the following scenario:

The Fox News Channel reported on this National Archives Briefing on the Electoral College yesterday:

http://www.c-span.org/

Recent Programs- 2nd one down. "National Archives Briefing on Electoral College."

This guy from the National Archives explains that it is the elecotoral college's right to vote against the electorate if they choose to do so.

Also from foxnews.com:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135605,00.html

Scary Scenarios Haunt 2004 Election
Friday, October 15, 2004

WASHINGTON — Despite all the vows of "never again" after the Florida fiasco of 2000, the scary scenarios for Election Day 2004 seem only to have increased: A tie vote in the Electoral College (search). A terrorist strike on Election Day. A disputed outcome in a critical state


****SNIP****

"Another quirk involves "faithless electors," who refuse to cast their electoral votes for the person chosen by their state's voters. This rarely happens — only 10 times in history — but even one this year could be critical. And one of the five Republican electors from West Virginia is holding out the possibility of withholding his vote for Bush if the president carries the state."

********

Why would Fox, in the middle of all their lesbian this, librul Taxachussetts that, be reporting on this? Because, if it's close (and it likely will be,) B*sh/Cheney/Rove are planning on manipulating the Electoral College- to swing it their way in one or more close states to "save the country" from another 2000 recount "debacle." And they're already preparing their base for it.

The Kerry-Edwards campaign may already be prepared for this possibility, I don't know. But this is what they're planning. Get ready people, it's going to get ugly. They are not going to relinquish power easily.

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. Yep, Finney in Central Florida was working on this before

Gore v. Bush was thought up.

[Sophree]

3. I remember that now.

That they were going to push FL's electoral college votes towards B*sh no matter how the recount and/or Supreme Court decision came out.

[forgethell]

2. We tried this

in 2000. It didn't work then, it won't work now.

[dmkinsey]

4. in this state

electors are selected by the state party at the state convention.
A person just doesn't walk in off the street and get to be an elector.
One has to be a dedicated,loyal, longtime contributor/supporter/former elected official

[Sophree]

5. And with the absolute power that B*shco has

You don't think they'd be able to manipulate the electors?

Please. Especially here in FL, the most corrupt state in the Union.

[amber dog democrat]

6. Hey, I thought Texas was more corrupt.

Thanks to DeLay.

But back to the topic, Yes i would not put manipulation and fraud beyond them.
I am wondering if the election will have been the easy part.

[Sophree]

8. Florida and Texas.

Could probably tie in the race for "Most Corrupt State." Both B*shie states, go figure.

And I wouldn't put anything past them.

[amber dog democrat]

10. I admit you have a real mess on your hands.

Will the UN be sending in monitors ? If not then maybe Jimmy Carter ?

[Sophree]

11. I hope so.

I don't think Jimmy Carter can come here because his organization doesn't monitor domestic elections. I don't know about the UN.

We are a Banana Republic, though. There is corruption at every level of governance.

[trogdor]

7. Chill.

The way it works is, the party that wins gets to send IT'S electors to DC. These people are vetted even more thoroughly than their presidential candidate for party loyalty above all else. There is therefore VERY little chance we will have to worry about any faithless electors. This is clearly a :tinfoilhat: tin foil hat :tinfoilhat: issue.

[Sophree]

9. So

Each party has an equal number of electors in each state and the party who wins gets to send theirs?

I thought that there were a set number of electors in each state and that they (usually) vote the way the electorate does.

The guy from the National Archives spoke about Hawaii and the 1960 election- how the electors there changed their votes. How could this happen?

[July]

12. This would be the end of the electoral college, I think.

And it smells so much that I don't think they'd be able to pull it off.

[Sophree]

13. Or the final nail in the coffin of democracy in this country.

If people realize that their vote is just a recommendation and that it doesn't really count, apathy will be even worse than it is now.

Which is B*shco's goal, I believe.

I don't know if Sidney Blumenthal was joking about the gilded crown in the Lincoln bedroom or not awaiting *'s "triumphant return" after the election, but all they would need to do after that would be to get rid of term limits. Then we'd be really the Fourth Reich.

It's not so far-fetched. Especially with the current congress and the way they lie down like puppies for this man.

[brooklynite]

14. Yes, but...

...while its arguably true that "faithless electors" can vote against the results of their state's popular vote, the electors themselves aren't neutral tokens to be easily manipulated; they're appointed by the campaign or the party, generally based on years of partisan loyalty. How does Bush & co manage to get a bunch of Democratic electors to swing their votes?

nb - for a great fictional read about electoral college chaos, try "The People's Choice" by Jeff Greenfield:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0452277051/qid=1098299292/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/104-0278979-9969507

[Sophree]

15. Do you know the answer to my question above?

Does each state have 2 sets of electors, one Democratic and one Republican? Or is there just one set?

[brooklynite]

17. Each candidate selects a slate of Electors...

in each state they are on the ballot in. Those Electors are then "e;ected" based on the state process (all or nothing / by CD / proportional, etc) depending on the state law. There's no such thing as the appointment of "independent electors" who represent the state irrespective of the vote count.

[Sophree]

18. Thank you.

So, the electors of the candidate who wins a plurality are automatically the ones who "vote?"

What if that plurality is in dispute and there is a recount, and/or court proceedings, as there was in 2000?

[brooklynite]

19. The Electoral Vote is later in the year

Part of the issue with the Bush v. Gore legal squabble was that the deadline for the state to certify its electors for the President vote (for tallying by the House of Representatives) was approaching which the case worked its way through the courts.

[Bandit]

16. If that were to happen I think it would be time to "Lock and Load"

Democracy would have perished and it would then become a free for all.