What would it take for 3 electors to change their votes?

LINK

12/14/00 12:05 p.m., National Review Online

Not Quite Over Will Bush-pledged electors switch over to Gore?

By John J. Pitney Jr., associate professor of government at Claremont McKenna College and the author of The Art of Political Warfare

It's not necessarily over.

Even as the Supreme Court seemed to hand the election to George W. Bush, Mario Cuomo and other Democrats were talking about the chance that some Bush-pledged electors might switch to Gore when they vote on December 18. With an electoral count of 271 to 267, it would take only three to reverse the outcome.

Electors tend to be party warhorses, so it is unlikely that many would even think about defecting. But a few might. Without such a switch, the 2000 election will be the first in 112 years in which the winner of the popular vote did not go to the White House. Correctly or incorrectly, that outcome strikes many Americans as unfair. Democrats could therefore tell each elector that he or she could make history by undoing an undemocratic result.

In a group of 271 people, could at least three yield to the temptation of a line in the history books? Democratic operative Bob Beckel is gathering election data that he hopes will nudge them in that direction. True, some states have laws requiring electors to abide by their pledges, but legal scholars question the constitutionality of such requirements. And in any event, no state has ever prosecuted a faithless elector.

Al Gore has said that he would not accept the vote of any elector pledged to Bush. This statement is meaningless, since the Constitution and federal laws do not let a candidate reject the votes of individual electors. His concession speech, while graciously bowing to "President-elect Bush," had no legal effect. So while the Gore camp has washed its hands of any involvement in vote-switching efforts, individual Democratic activists remain free to mount last-ditch guerrilla efforts.

So what should the Bush forces do? First, they must watch the electors as carefully as congressional whips monitor their members in a close floor vote. Second, they should press Gore to clarify his position on faithless electors. According to the Los Angeles Times, Gore spokesman Chris Lehane said that if the elector-switching effort were successful, Gore would have little choice but to accept the presidency, notwithstanding his earlier denial.

Lehane was incorrect. Gore and Lieberman could decline to take the oath of office, or if legal authorities ruled out that option, they could resign right after the swearing-in. In that case, the Presidential Succession Act would give the presidency to the speaker of the House. Since the Constitution does not require the speaker to be a member of Congress, Denny Hastert could step down as speaker before Inauguration Day, and his colleagues could then replace him with Bush. (The House could restore Hastert to the speakership upon Bush's assumption of the presidency.) Under the 25th Amendment, Bush could then nominate Dick Cheney to be vice president, subject to approval by the House and Senate.

Though complex and unprecedented, that scenario is constitutionally possible. Therefore, Gore can and should say: "Governor Bush and Secretary Cheney have won a majority in the electoral college. If any of their electors instead for me and Senator Lieberman, and if those changes reverse the outcome, we will not take office." With those words, Gore would pre-empt any vote-switching efforts.

Between now and the time that the electors cast their votes on December 18, we will not have airtight closure unless Gore makes such a statement.

Newsweek recently quoted Gore campaign manager Donna Brazile as saying, "This is war without bloodshed." And so it is. The Gore concession has led many Bush supporters to think that they have won the war. But as military theorist S. L. A. Marshall wrote: "Tension is the normal state of mind and body in combat. When the tension suddenly relaxes through the winning of a first objective, troops are apt to be pervaded by a sense of extreme well-being and there is apt to ensue laxness in all its forms and with all its dangers."

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), December 14, 2000

Answers

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. I believe that if the above scenario were to take place, then Congress would still have the option to reject the Electoral College vote. Then the election would take place in the House of Representatives with every state getting one vote.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), December 14, 2000.

Government tests have proved that colloidal silver works better in swimming pools than chlorine!

-- Barney Fife (barneyfife@aol.com), December 15, 2000.

To All The Nice People In Other Countries, Watching This:

We've got it covered. Really. Even if we have to have to have the capitol police drag Bush, kicking and screaming, OUT of the oval office and drag Gore, kicking and screaming, INTO the oval office, we know what we're doing. Really. Trust us.

-- I'm Here, I'm There, (I'm Everywhere,@So.Beware), December 15, 2000.