What if Gore delays things in Florida until after December 18?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

I read one article in the paper which says that the electoral college would vote without the electors from Florida.

Another article said this was not true.

Yet another article said that this the answer to this question is not clear from the way the Constitution is written. I tend to agree with this view, but how about you?


-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), November 17, 2000


I'm totally convinced that GORE is ANAL-RETENTIVE.

I do not believe that America will best be served by a President who is always checking his @$$.

How many Gore voters realized he is such a control freak?

This makes me nauseous.

-- dinosaur (dinosaur@williams-net.com), November 17, 2000.

It sounds pretty clear to me Joe...

Article XII.

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 of 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.<3> --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.

-- (keep.stalling.george@gore.wins), November 18, 2000.

Could but won't happen JOJ. Constitution sez the vote is among the electors present. If Fla can't get its shit together and "sends" no electors then the state loses out. Ain't gonna happen but it would make it kind of fun.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), November 18, 2000.

What makes you so sure Carlos?

-- (are@you.privy?), November 18, 2000.

No croaking allowed in Cabinet meetings Mr. President Thurmond.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), November 18, 2000.

I believe the key sentence, in the perspective of my question, is "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"

The question is, are the framers trying to say the majority of the electors voting, or the majority of the electors who would be voting if all states were successful in completing their vote counts by Dec. 18? In other words, if Florida gets delayed until after the electors cast their votes, the majority of electors voting would be less than Gore already has--not the 270 required if all states' electors are allowed to vote.

By the way, it's the 12th amendment, not Article 12. And I don't see anywhere that it says, "all electors PRESENT", Carlos. Where does it say that? Besides, what do you mean by "present"? Present where?


Anyway, I have a hunch that that's what the Gore boys are trying to pull off. In fact, I heard one of the Florida news correspondents interviewing a Demo in Fla who said it could take three or four weeks to get the hand recount. Four weeks puts us pretty darn close to Dec. 18...

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), November 18, 2000.

Carlos? Still there?

-- (what.do@you.know?), November 18, 2000.

Article 12 is the 12th Ammendment.

-- (f@y.i), November 18, 2000.

"present" was a poor word. But, there's no requirment that every state shows up for the electoral college vote. No show, no go.

Whip me, beat me, treat me like the dog I am if I'm wrong on this one.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), November 18, 2000.

Carlos, you said it "ain't gonna happen". What makes you think it won't?

-- (any@particular.reason?), November 18, 2000.

The reason I asked where is "present", Carlos, is that the US Constitution says that electors will vote in their respective states. So there does not appear to be an electoral college where they all congregate to vote.

I, too, would like to know why you think that this scenario of Florida not getting its electors counted "won't happen."

Tell me. Please!


-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), November 18, 2000.

“Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors equal to ...”

Sounds like if the vote count is incomplete the legislature is obligated to appoint electors.

“... and the members of the several state legislatures, and ... shall be bound by oath, or affirmation, to support this constitution; ...”

Not sure what the penalty to the state legislators would be for failure to support the constitution by neglecting their duty to appoint electors. Removal from office makes some sense (penalty for high crimes and misdemenors by civil officers). Maybe when Congress set the time for choosing the electors and the day on which they give their votes this contingency was covered.

-- dandelion (golden@pleurisy.plant), November 18, 2000.

dandelion, the electors have already been appointed. If the election results from Florida are not certified by the time the electors vote, they simply can't vote. Only a majority of the states are needed to elect the president.

-- (bush@gonna.lose), November 18, 2000.

Well, I guess Carlos only has a "hunch" that it won't happen. I think it is a good possibility, that is, that Florida may get left out of the electoral vote process.

The way I see it, Bush is between a rock and a hard place.

He had hoped he could just obstruct the entire hand count process, knowing he would win. But the courts aren't that stupid. The Florida Supreme Court will decide next week if the hand counts should be included, and whatever decision is rendered there is likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. That could get VERY involved, and could easily go on beyond the Dec. 18 vote by the electoral college, in which case he will lose.

If he drops the court cases and agrees to accept the hand counts, it's really a tossup. If he does it soon, Florida could be certified in time to be included in the electoral votes, but he fears that the hand counts may not come out in his favor. That is a risk he would be wise to take, and take it soon, if he hopes to have any chance of winning.

I think he is just stalling, hoping that the courts will rule to reject all hand counts. Not likely, at least not when it goes to Federal court, because many other states already accept hand counts, including his own. Stalling this thing off in court until the electoral college votes on Dec. 18 would be suicidal for Bush, so I expect that next week he will concede to the hand counts, if he is wise. IF.

-- JMO (there.ya@go.joe), November 18, 2000.

It seems to me that at present either the wrong number of electors have been appointed (assuming that they have already been appointed) or there are two (or more) slates of potential electors waiting to be appointed.

The recent Washington Post weekly edition said that in 1960 Hawaii sent in votes from two different sets of electors and Congress chose which set to count, which, as it turned out, was not the set certified by the state, but rather a corrected version after a vote recount. So evidently electors do not always need to be certified by the state to vote.

It seems that in case of doubt both sets of electors should send in votes.


-- dandelion (golden@pleurisy.plant), November 18, 2000.

I think we should have 3 presidents=1.for the people 1. for the polticians & 1. to play golf all day!!

-- al-d (dogs@zianet.com), November 18, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ