Say there's a 3 way Presidential election and no one gets a majority of the Electoral votes so the election will be thrown in to the House of Representatives . However it's clear that the winner is going to be Candidate X because his party controls the majority of the House state delegations.
Is there anything for stopping Candidate Z from instructing his Electors from voting for Candidate Y (the less distasteful alternative) so it never gets to that point? I don't think there is, is there?
I believe some states have laws to punish "Faithless Electors."
A quick Google search revealed a complete list of Faithless Electors:
http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/faithless.htm (http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/faithless.htm)
Feel ashamed for them.
Quote from: Savonarola on April 22, 2010, 10:33:49 AM
A quick Google search revealed a complete list of Faithless Electors:
http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/faithless.htm (http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/faithless.htm)
Feel ashamed for them.
Are they really faithless if their Candidate asks them to vote that way?
More importantly those laws are likely unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court is a political body. The laws may or may not be constitutional depending on the political affiliation of the injured party by a faithless elector. If the injured party was a Republican, then it's clearly unconstituional. If it's a Democrat, certainly it's within the rules.
The Constitution provides no provision for political parties. It's blind to them. I don't see why that would matter.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 22, 2010, 11:36:23 AM
The Constitution provides no provision for political parties. It's blind to them. I don't see why that would matter.
Why bother responing to a Fate statement like that?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 22, 2010, 08:44:30 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 22, 2010, 11:36:23 AM
The Constitution provides no provision for political parties. It's blind to them. I don't see why that would matter.
Why bother responing to a Fate statement like that?
Why did you even bother starting this thread, seeing as how you seem to know that state laws to punish "faithless electors" are probably unconstitutional?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 22, 2010, 10:22:01 AM
Say there's a 3 way Presidential election and no one gets a majority of the Electoral votes so the election will be thrown in to the House of Representatives . However it's clear that the winner is going to be Candidate X because his party controls the majority of the House state delegations.
Is there anything for stopping Candidate Z from instructing his Electors from voting for Candidate Y (the less distasteful alternative) so it never gets to that point? I don't think there is, is there?
Electors don't belong to candidates, but a candidate could presumably tell them to do whatever he wants to tel them to do (vote for Y, pick up a sixpack on the way home, mail him/her $100, etc). Whether they listen or not is up to them, though. They are state party members, pledged to a slate. The slate is how they are supposed to vote.
Quote from: grumbler on April 22, 2010, 09:11:33 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 22, 2010, 10:22:01 AM
Say there's a 3 way Presidential election and no one gets a majority of the Electoral votes so the election will be thrown in to the House of Representatives . However it's clear that the winner is going to be Candidate X because his party controls the majority of the House state delegations.
Is there anything for stopping Candidate Z from instructing his Electors from voting for Candidate Y (the less distasteful alternative) so it never gets to that point? I don't think there is, is there?
Electors don't belong to candidates, but a candidate could presumably tell them to do whatever he wants to tel them to do (vote for Y, pick up a sixpack on the way home, mail him/her $100, etc). Whether they listen or not is up to them, though. They are state party members, pledged to a slate. The slate is how they are supposed to vote.
Hmm...interesting. :hmm:
Thank you.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 22, 2010, 11:36:23 AM
The Constitution provides no provision for political parties. It's blind to them. I don't see why that would matter.
The Constitution has provided no provision for curtailing right wing judicial activists bent on self reinforcing their majority by selecting right wing Presidents over left wing Presidents when presented the opportunity to influence the result.
Quote from: Fate on April 23, 2010, 12:28:00 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 22, 2010, 11:36:23 AM
The Constitution provides no provision for political parties. It's blind to them. I don't see why that would matter.
The Constitution has provided no provision for curtailing right wing judicial activists bent on self reinforcing their majority by selecting right wing Presidents over left wing Presidents when presented the opportunity to influence the result.
Sure it has.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 22, 2010, 10:22:01 AM
Say there's a 3 way Presidential election.
Lost me right there. Will not happen in forseeable future, no need to clutch at straws.
Quote from: Drakken on April 23, 2010, 02:47:19 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 22, 2010, 10:22:01 AM
Say there's a 3 way Presidential election.
Lost me right there. Will not happen in forseeable future, no need to clutch at straws.
:huh: What does that have to do with his hypothetical? Is it just that you don't know what "clutch at straws" means?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 23, 2010, 01:26:11 PM
Quote from: Fate on April 23, 2010, 12:28:00 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 22, 2010, 11:36:23 AM
The Constitution provides no provision for political parties. It's blind to them. I don't see why that would matter.
The Constitution has provided no provision for curtailing right wing judicial activists bent on self reinforcing their majority by selecting right wing Presidents over left wing Presidents when presented the opportunity to influence the result.
Sure it has.
Fate rule.
Quote from: Drakken on April 23, 2010, 02:47:19 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 22, 2010, 10:22:01 AM
Say there's a 3 way Presidential election.
Lost me right there. Will not happen in forseeable future, no need to clutch at straws.
I was thinking of the 1912 election when I wrote this.
Make a map of the potential outcome and I'll comment on it.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 23, 2010, 09:44:59 PM
Make a map of the potential outcome and I'll comment on it.
Oh, I am, I've spent hours and hours going over statewide results from the 1904, 1912 and 1920, 1924 elections in order to make sure that the results are plausible given a non-Wilson Democratic candidate.
:face:
I hope he's serious. :lol:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 23, 2010, 10:10:22 PM
I hope he's serious. :lol:
HisMajestyBob said I have the lamest Friday nights ever. -_-
You should have spent the time studying how to say "You're beautiful" and "I love you" in Korean. :P
I love you would be a bit much, don't you think?
Nah, it can be useful.
Better to know it and not use it, than need to use it and not know it.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 23, 2010, 10:54:34 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 23, 2010, 10:10:22 PM
I hope he's serious. :lol:
HisMajestyBob said I have the lamest Friday nights ever. -_-
Dude...you're never going to be in your 20s and in Korea again. Go get drunk and meet chicks.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 23, 2010, 09:32:05 PM
Quote from: Drakken on April 23, 2010, 02:47:19 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 22, 2010, 10:22:01 AM
Say there's a 3 way Presidential election.
Lost me right there. Will not happen in forseeable future, no need to clutch at straws.
I was thinking of the 1912 election when I wrote this.
1912 was the foreseeable future in 1910, not 2010. :P
Quote from: Drakken on April 23, 2010, 11:34:26 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 23, 2010, 09:32:05 PM
Quote from: Drakken on April 23, 2010, 02:47:19 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 22, 2010, 10:22:01 AM
Say there's a 3 way Presidential election.
Lost me right there. Will not happen in forseeable future, no need to clutch at straws.
I was thinking of the 1912 election when I wrote this.
1912 was the foreseeable future in 1910, not 2010. :P
I never said in the OP that I was thinking of the foreseeable future.
DP, I will be doing that tonight. It's not like I don't go out and do that here.
And it will be my job to make sure Tim doesn't try to impress girls with minutia of 100 year old elections.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on April 24, 2010, 02:02:30 AM
And it will be my job to make sure Tim doesn't try to impress girls with minutia of 100 year old elections.
That's not how I remember our last outing.
What does the Electoral College matter? Everyone knows that American political decisions are made by faceless rich white guys in coke-filled rooms.
Quote from: The Brain on April 24, 2010, 02:22:16 AM
What does the Electoral College matter? Everyone knows that American political decisions are made by faceless rich white guys in coke-filled rooms.
Smoke filled rooms, the coke is for after party.
Quote from: The Brain on April 24, 2010, 02:22:16 AM
What does the Electoral College matter? Everyone knows that American political decisions are made by faceless rich white guys in coke-filled rooms.
What exactly do you think an Elector is? :huh:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 24, 2010, 06:24:18 AM
Quote from: The Brain on April 24, 2010, 02:22:16 AM
What does the Electoral College matter? Everyone knows that American political decisions are made by faceless rich white guys in coke-filled rooms.
What exactly do you think an Elector is? :huh:
A German prince. Which sounds like a horrible concept btw.
Quote from: The Brain on April 24, 2010, 02:22:16 AM
What does the Electoral College matter? Everyone knows that American political decisions are made by faceless rich white guys in coke-filled rooms.
I love Coke as much as anyone, but I wouldn't want to swim in a room filled with it. Too syrupy!
Quote from: Savonarola on April 22, 2010, 10:30:09 AM
I believe some states have laws to punish "Faithless Electors."
Don't they get melted into the wall surrounding Kelemvor's domain?
Quote from: The Brain on April 24, 2010, 07:05:45 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 24, 2010, 06:24:18 AM
Quote from: The Brain on April 24, 2010, 02:22:16 AM
What does the Electoral College matter? Everyone knows that American political decisions are made by faceless rich white guys in coke-filled rooms.
What exactly do you think an Elector is? :huh:
A German prince. Which sounds like a horrible concept btw.
Depends. What's German for "Formerly known as"?
Quote from: Martinus on April 24, 2010, 02:21:48 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on April 22, 2010, 10:30:09 AM
I believe some states have laws to punish "Faithless Electors."
Don't they get melted into the wall surrounding Kelemvor's domain?
Interesting reference. I hadn't realised he'd become a god.
Quote from: Martinus on April 24, 2010, 02:21:48 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on April 22, 2010, 10:30:09 AM
I believe some states have laws to punish "Faithless Electors."
Don't they get melted into the wall surrounding Kelemvor's domain?
That's another problem with the Coke-filled rooms. Stuff will dissolve anything.
Quote from: Agelastus on April 24, 2010, 06:01:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 24, 2010, 02:21:48 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on April 22, 2010, 10:30:09 AM
I believe some states have laws to punish "Faithless Electors."
Don't they get melted into the wall surrounding Kelemvor's domain?
Interesting reference. I hadn't realised he'd become a god.
Over a fucking decade ago.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2010, 06:36:26 PM
Over a fucking decade ago.
How many real decades in a fucking decade (or vice-versa)?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2010, 06:36:26 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on April 24, 2010, 06:01:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 24, 2010, 02:21:48 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on April 22, 2010, 10:30:09 AM
I believe some states have laws to punish "Faithless Electors."
Don't they get melted into the wall surrounding Kelemvor's domain?
Interesting reference. I hadn't realised he'd become a god.
Over a fucking decade ago.
Since I haven't read a "Forgotten Realms" book in at least 15 fucking years, I'm quite pleased I remembered the name. :P
Okay, after comparing the state by states for 1912
to the two closest Republican landslides in 1904
and 1920 as well as 1924 which has some
similarities to the proposed hypothetical where
Progressive Democrats defect, this is the absolute
worst I think the Democrats could have done. Say
if Clark's complacent (IIRC he lost his first House
reelection campaign due to this) and then has
some gaffs towards the end when he realizes he's
in trouble and goes into panic mode. Taft paints
Champ as more conservative than he really is,
positioning himself as the sensible and moderate
choice. Roosevelt meanwhile benefits from the
hemorrhaging of Progressive elements of the
Democratic Caucus who defect like they would do
in the OTL 1924 election. In not one state do the
Democrats exceed their worst showing in the
1904,1920 or 1924 time elections. IIRC, in only
one state do the Democrats even get with 1% of
that mark (Arizona). By the way, I found it quite
amazing how static voting patterns were in the
South with the exception of the years in which a
state's right type ran.
TR - 212 with 29.97% (+2.57%)
Clark -207 with 37.56% (-4.25%)
Taft - 109 with 24.88% (+1.68%)
(I'm annoyed I can't figure out how to post the
enormous table I made)
If only 54 out of 109 Taft Electors follow Taft's
plea to back TR, than Roosevelt is elected.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi58.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fg251%2FTim811%2FAltelectoralcollege-1.png&hash=2c0d5d12721a1269ae63e94902367b1811baca15)
WTF is Clark and what happened to Woodrow Wilson?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 25, 2010, 09:27:25 AM
WTF is Clark and what happened to Woodrow Wilson?
The whole point of this is to run the election without Wilson, who was Progressive and a good campaigner. Clark was the Democratic Speaker of the House, a man perceived as more conservative and pro-business. He was the favorite for the nomination in 1912. Bryan wouldn't accept him and threw his support to Wilson. If Wilson doesn't run for some reason (worse stroke in 1906 for example), then he'd almost certainly be the nominee.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 25, 2010, 09:33:59 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 25, 2010, 09:27:25 AM
WTF is Clark and what happened to Woodrow Wilson?
The whole point of this is to run the election without Wilson, who was Progressive and a good campaigner. Clark was the Democratic Speaker of the House, a man perceived as more conservative and pro-business. He was the favorite for the nomination in 1912. Bryan wouldn't accept him and threw his support to Wilson. If Wilson doesn't run for some reason (worse stroke in 1906 for example), then he'd almost certainly be the nominee.
So this thread is a ruse to get us to help with an alternative history discussion?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 25, 2010, 09:27:25 AM
WTF is Clark and what happened to Woodrow Wilson?
Tim already said Wilson would be out. :rolleyes:
Quote from: alfred russel on April 25, 2010, 10:12:36 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 25, 2010, 09:33:59 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 25, 2010, 09:27:25 AM
WTF is Clark and what happened to Woodrow Wilson?
The whole point of this is to run the election without Wilson, who was Progressive and a good campaigner. Clark was the Democratic Speaker of the House, a man perceived as more conservative and pro-business. He was the favorite for the nomination in 1912. Bryan wouldn't accept him and threw his support to Wilson. If Wilson doesn't run for some reason (worse stroke in 1906 for example), then he'd almost certainly be the nominee.
So this thread is a ruse to get us to help with an alternative history discussion?
Not surprising - Tim's more into alternate history than I am, and I seem to be tinkering every couple of weeks or so with the Washington Treaty for various personal HOI mods.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 25, 2010, 10:12:36 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 25, 2010, 09:33:59 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 25, 2010, 09:27:25 AM
WTF is Clark and what happened to Woodrow Wilson?
The whole point of this is to run the election without Wilson, who was Progressive and a good campaigner. Clark was the Democratic Speaker of the House, a man perceived as more conservative and pro-business. He was the favorite for the nomination in 1912. Bryan wouldn't accept him and threw his support to Wilson. If Wilson doesn't run for some reason (worse stroke in 1906 for example), then he'd almost certainly be the nominee.
So this thread is a ruse to get us to help with an alternative history discussion?
The worst thing is, he started out by asking about laws restricting the freedom of electors. Even if those laws were to be found constitutional, everyone was telling him about current laws--which basically hadn't been enacted in 1912.
:thumbsdown: