political question
Locked
 
|
I came across a short article recently about slates of electors. It seemed to say that Congress must certify/accept the results of the electoral college vote and, in some fashion could overturn that vote by accepting a different slate of electors. To that end, seven states have sent Congress two slates of electors, one Democratic and voting for Biden, the other republican and voting for Trump. Congress, it is asserted, has the power to disqualify one set of electors and replace them with the other, thereby giving Trump the electoral college victory despite what happened a few days ago.
Further, there is supposedly a precedent. Hawaii was won by Nixon and a set of electors sent to the college to vote accordingly. Democrats in state government set an alternative set of electors to Congress with commitment to vote Kennedy and this second set prevailed in Congress and so Kennedy got Hawaii's electoral college votes. The limited time I have available to pursue confirmation of this story has expired with no results. I toss it into the font of erudition that is FRIAM, hoping someone there can quickly and definitively parse the story. davew - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
As always, just because it's in black and white, don't make it true. But there is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election_in_Hawaii Speaking of which, if you have extra cash, Wikipedia is an excellent resource for end of year donations. I can't speak to whatever form Congressional objection might take. I've heard that it's pretty much dead on arrival: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/22/trump-election-result-overturning-effort-republicans On 12/22/20 3:58 PM, Prof David West wrote: > I came across a short article recently about slates of electors. It seemed to say that Congress must certify/accept the results of the electoral college vote and, in some fashion could overturn that vote by accepting a different slate of electors. To that end, seven states have sent Congress two slates of electors, one Democratic and voting for Biden, the other republican and voting for Trump. Congress, it is asserted, has the power to disqualify one set of electors and replace them with the other, thereby giving Trump the electoral college victory despite what happened a few days ago. > > Further, there is supposedly a precedent. Hawaii was won by Nixon and a set of electors sent to the college to vote accordingly. Democrats in state government set an alternative set of electors to Congress with commitment to vote Kennedy and this second set prevailed in Congress and so Kennedy got Hawaii's electoral college votes. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
From the US Code: 15. Counting electoral votes in Congress Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o'clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of. (June 25, 1948, ch. 644, 62 Stat. 675.) Here, for your further delight, is the aforementioned section five §5. Determination of controversy as to appointment of electorsIf 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. (June 25, 1948, ch. 644, 62 Stat. 673.) It’s a good thing “we” won the house. N Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- As always, just because it's in black and white, don't make it true. But there is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election_in_Hawaii Speaking of which, if you have extra cash, Wikipedia is an excellent resource for end of year donations. I can't speak to whatever form Congressional objection might take. I've heard that it's pretty much dead on arrival: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/22/trump-election-result-overturning-effort-republicans On 12/22/20 3:58 PM, Prof David West wrote: > I came across a short article recently about slates of electors. It seemed to say that Congress must certify/accept the results of the electoral college vote and, in some fashion could overturn that vote by accepting a different slate of electors. To that end, seven states have sent Congress two slates of electors, one Democratic and voting for Biden, the other republican and voting for Trump. Congress, it is asserted, has the power to disqualify one set of electors and replace them with the other, thereby giving Trump the electoral college victory despite what happened a few days ago. > > Further, there is supposedly a precedent. Hawaii was won by Nixon and a set of electors sent to the college to vote accordingly. Democrats in state government set an alternative set of electors to Congress with commitment to vote Kennedy and this second set prevailed in Congress and so Kennedy got Hawaii's electoral college votes. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
With all of the crazed, disturbing damage the Donald has done to the
Republican Party, I'm surprised *he* hasn't been fretting about faithless electors in the states he "won" (the old fashioned way, with popular vote). I can just imagine he and Rudy and the other whacks pulling off one of their stunts to overturn one of the swing states he lost, only to have one of the other states' electors go rogue on him... maybe a fat one like TX or FL? me and my alternate universes... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector On 12/22/20 5:36 PM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote: > As always, just because it's in black and white, don't make it true. But there is this: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election_in_Hawaii > > Speaking of which, if you have extra cash, Wikipedia is an excellent resource for end of year donations. I can't speak to whatever form Congressional objection might take. I've heard that it's pretty much dead on arrival: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/22/trump-election-result-overturning-effort-republicans > > > On 12/22/20 3:58 PM, Prof David West wrote: >> I came across a short article recently about slates of electors. It seemed to say that Congress must certify/accept the results of the electoral college vote and, in some fashion could overturn that vote by accepting a different slate of electors. To that end, seven states have sent Congress two slates of electors, one Democratic and voting for Biden, the other republican and voting for Trump. Congress, it is asserted, has the power to disqualify one set of electors and replace them with the other, thereby giving Trump the electoral college victory despite what happened a few days ago. >> >> Further, there is supposedly a precedent. Hawaii was won by Nixon and a set of electors sent to the college to vote accordingly. Democrats in state government set an alternative set of electors to Congress with commitment to vote Kennedy and this second set prevailed in Congress and so Kennedy got Hawaii's electoral college votes. > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by thompnickson2
Maybe I missed it. But does "submitted to the [chamber] for its decision" mean simple majority vote? Committee vote? What?
On 12/22/20 8:06 PM, [hidden email] wrote: > When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of > Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Simple majority vote, except in the case where the house is called to elect the president, in which case, each house delegation has a single vote. But that occurs only if there is no majority of electors and that would require the house to concur in the discrediting of some pro-biden electors. Seems far-fetched. On the other hand, Maddow had her hair on fire last night about some attempt to get rulings from the chair (Pence) during the "opening and counting" phase. Not clear how one overrules the chair during a joint session of congress.
Ugh. Doesn't bear thinking about. N Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University [hidden email] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 7:59 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] political question Maybe I missed it. But does "submitted to the [chamber] for its decision" mean simple majority vote? Committee vote? What? On 12/22/20 8:06 PM, [hidden email] wrote: > When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall > have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and > such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and > the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, > submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its > decision; -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |