|
Title: Electors refuse to vote Post by: 2952-0-0 on December 17, 2004, 03:38:53 AM What if the electors meet at a state capitol and collectively refuse to vote?
Title: Re: Electors refuse to vote Post by: Alcon on December 17, 2004, 08:04:31 PM Like in any case where no one reaches a plurality, it would go to the house, I think.
Title: Re: Electors refuse to vote Post by: I spent the winter writing songs about getting better on December 17, 2004, 09:00:54 PM Like in any case where no one reaches a plurality, it would go to the house, I think. actually one candidate needs a majority, not a plurality, if there's 3 candidates and no one breaks 270, it goes to the House. That was the goal of Strom Thurmond and George Wallace actually, they wanted to scare the national Democrats by forcing the House to decide the election, sort of a way to send a message. Title: Re: Electors refuse to vote Post by: Alcon on December 17, 2004, 09:23:32 PM Like in any case where no one reaches a plurality, it would go to the house, I think. actually one candidate needs a majority, not a plurality, if there's 3 candidates and no one breaks 270, it goes to the House. That was the goal of Strom Thurmond and George Wallace actually, they wanted to scare the national Democrats by forcing the House to decide the election, sort of a way to send a message. That is what I meant. Obviously a plurality would result even if candidates did not hit 269. I meant a majority of the electoral votes. Yet again I should stop posting with the flu. Title: Re: Electors refuse to vote Post by: J. J. on December 17, 2004, 11:22:19 PM Election requires a majority of the electors appointed, so if enough abstained, is would go to the House.
|