If a state does not vote in the electoral college...

[Hobbes199]

An article from 2000, about what happens if a state does not appoint it's electors:

>> D. WHAT HAPPENS IF DOESN'T VOTE IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE?

>> There are two competing theories on what would happen:

>> Theory #1: Whichever candidate wins a majority of the remaining number of electoral votes would win the presidency

>> The Constitution says that "the person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed." Some have interpreted the phrase "whole number of electors appointed" to mean the total number of electors certified to vote when the Electoral College meets on December 18...

>> Theory #2: Without , neither candidate could reach the required 270, and the U.S. House of Representatives would elect the president

>> Some argue that even if does not certify its electors in time for them to vote in the Electoral College, a candidate would still need a majority of all possible electoral votes in order to win (270 out of 538)...

>> ...Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) reportedly has also ordered research on this issue and believes that the removal of votes will mean that the winner of the election will be the candidate who has the majority of the remaining 513 electoral votes (Source: Washington Post 11/19).

Anyone know what the final decision is?

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/allpolitics/0012/electors/print.html

[bemis12]

1. Does it matter?

It's never happened, and it's never going to happen.

Which red state do you think might forget to send it's electors?

[jsamuel]

2. Yes, it does matter

[bemis12]

3. I'm listening n/t

[benburch]

It is possible that Ohio might be prevented from certifying.

But even if so, that wouldn't change the outcome.

Florida has a law wherein the legislature can slate electors if there are problems with the election, and so cannot be prevented from sending electors. I suspect the problem the writers envisioned was a hurricane and not fraud, however.

[PeterPan]

22. they have to certify by dec. 1

tho rumor is that katherine blackwell will try to stretch that til dec. 6 - i haven't been able to find an answer as to whether a slate of electors can be chosen (which will be done by the - republican - ohio state assembly) while a recount is in progress but if they do and a recount subsequently demonstrates that kerry accually got more votes in ohio well its anyone's guess

[Hobbes199]

4. OH and FL

If there is enough evidence of fraud and enough public outcry of no confidence in the election, the state legislatures could decide to not send a slate of electors at all, since they might not have a clear winner without a revote.

Unlikely, yes. Impossible, no. It would certainly be a way out rather than having to certify a Democratic slate that they don't necessarily want, or a Republican slate that no one thinks won.

[jsamuel]

5. Right, but that doesn't answer the question

Which one would then take place? 1 or 2?

[bullimiami]

10. forget florida

these assholes in tallahassee were ready to send a slate of republican electors if gore won florida in 2000. they dont care about anything but power.

[Dr Ron]

6. Probably goes to the House

While it is certainly possible that the media had it wrong, when there was a possibility of a 269 tie, all the articles I read said it would go to the House due to no candidate getting 270 votes.

Note that the House picks among the top three in the electoral college. If enough electors didn't vote such that nobody got 270 votes, and some voted for other candidates, the House could legally pick someone other than Bush and Kerry. Obviouslly this will never really happen, but it is theoreticlaly possible for the Republicans to decide, for the good of the country, to elect a different Republican than Bush.

[ewulf]

16. In the case of a 269 vote tie,

it would go to the house of Representatives, as the full caucus of electors would give no majority to either candidate, but if, say, one of the * states ended up not assigning an elector for some reason, Kerry would be president, as 269 is a majority of 537.

[Dr Ron]

21. This would be getting into a area with no precident.

I suspect that in such an unusual situation, it might wind up going to the Supreme Court to decide, and we have already seen that they are capable of putting political expediency above principle.

[IAMREALITY]

7. Using My Strong Suit of Logic, I would have to say

That they need minimum 270 which is the majority of all the electors, whether they cast a vote or not. This is based on the quote

"the person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed.".

If it was just the most votes, wouldn't they have just needed to say

"the person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President."?

[jsamuel]

8. Right, but what if Florida does not "appoint electors"

due to voter fraud?

[bullimiami]

12. florida will send republican electors. period.

look at 2000. maybe, only maybe, if kerry had a clear win, would they follow the rules, otherwise I dont think they would hesitate to take the election in their own hands if florida was the difference, even with a close kerry win I wouldnt put it past them.

[jsamuel]

14. The problem is that they would face PRISON if they did that

[Hobbes199]

18. We'd like them to face prison

But they wouldn't.

[jsamuel]

19. No, they would. It is LAW that they cannot do that if they know FRAUD

took place. And they would not be able to send them during a contesting of the vote. Otherwise, it is a FELONY.

[heliarc]

24. Lett Simmons didn't care

if it was a felony. Submitted a blank vote in the 2000 election to protest a lack of representation in the District of Columbia...

Don't see why electors convinced of a fraudulent election might have a waking moment of conscience... Its not too insane to think it might happen... The electors are in the public record. I urge all of you to write your electors... only half of the states require electors to vote with the popular count anyway... These are the states that DO NOT legally bind electors to the popular vote:

ARIZONA - 10 Electoral Votes
ARKANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes
DELAWARE - 3 Electoral Votes
GEORGIA - 15 Electoral Votes
IDAHO - 4 Electoral Votes
ILLINOIS - 21 Electoral Votes
INDIANA - 11 Electoral Votes
IOWA - 7 Electoral Votes
KANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes
KENTUCKY - 8 Electoral Votes
LOUISIANA - 9 Electoral Votes
MINNESOTA - 10 Electoral Votes
MISSOURI - 11 Electoral Votes
NEW HAMPSHIRE - 4 Electoral Votes
NEW JERSEY - 15 Electoral Votes
NEW YORK - 31 Electoral Votes
NORTH DAKOTA - 3 Electoral Votes
PENNSYLVANIA - 21 Electoral Votes
RHODE ISLAND - 4 Electoral Votes
SOUTH DAKOTA - 3 Electoral Votes
TENNESSEE - 11 Electoral Votes
TEXAS - 34 Electoral Votes
UTAH - 5 Electoral Votes
WEST VIRGINIA - 5 Electoral Votes  


Heliarc

[The Spirit of JFK]

28. If challenged, those laws would probably be proved unconstituional

A lot of legal experts say that those laws are on shaky shaky ground.

[Hobbes199]

9. No because there may be more than 2 candidates.

So the majority is necessary rather than a plurality. The part I'm focussing on is:

"a majority of the whole number of electors appointed."

the word appointed seems key here. Would appointed and selected be the same? Or would appointed and allocated be the same?

[IAMREALITY]

11. I strongly believe

It is a reference to the number of electors Granted to a state based on population. I don't think it has anything to do with whether the electors actually show up or not. An elector not showing up is the same as a no vote, in my opinion.

[bullimiami]

13. a no vote for whom?

the electors dont cast yes or no votes, they pick a candidate.

[IAMREALITY]

17. No Shit

No Vote as in Null Vote, Non existant Vote. Vote Not Cast. Vote Now Written etc..

[ewulf]

15. There is a difference,

between the having an absolute majority of the electors appointed, even if not all states appointed electors, and having a plurality of the votes cast. The later is not enough to be president, the former is. It seems like the language is clear, only the caucus of actually appointed electors matter, the number of "potential" electors is irrelevant. If neither Florida nor Ohio send electors, Kerry will be President.

[Hobbes199]

20. Sounds good to me, but

I bet the House would interpret it to their liking.

[masshole1979]

23. Last time the Supreme Court just invented something...

...right out of thin air. The Consitution was pretty clear on what was supposed to happen (they were supposed to count all the votes and appoint electors accordingly). But that didn't stop the Supremes from appointing a prez--and for some reason, the fact that they had no power to do so did not stop the Dems from caving or the media from rubber-stamping the whole thing.

[badc0der]

25. I think it matter why they aren't there

It seems to me that if electors are appointed by the state but they don't show up then their votes (or lack thereof) contribute to the majority, but if a state doesn't or can't appoint electors then they are not.

[Silverhair]

26. Useless speculation. ALL STATES WILL VOTE IN THE EC. NT

[truehawk]

27. Not quite the right question