Should the Electoral College meet on a dfferent date?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Currently the electors meet on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December. (December 13 to 19).  This can be changed by Congress.  The Florida recount was stopped in 2000 because it could not be completed before the electors met to vote, so a later date would have allowed more time for the recount to be conducted.  Clearly a later date would give more time for recount.  On the other hand an earlier date would allow a disputed election to reach final resolution sooner.

Note, I explicitly did not include an option to eliminate the Electoral College since that would require a Constitutional amendment.

[kohler]

To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

But, by state laws, The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
      
When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
      
The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
         
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
         
The bill has passed 32 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 10 jurisdictions with 136 electoral votes – 50.4% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
               
NationalPopularVote      
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

[kohler]

The text of the proposed federal recount bill follows:

To amend title 3, United States Code, to require a State to make available to a presidential candidate a timely initial count and a timely recount of the number of votes cast in the presidential election in the State, to change the date for a State to complete its final canvas or ascertainment of the number of votes cast for each candidate in a presidential election, to change the date the date the meeting of presidential electors, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Presidential Election Recount Act of ___’’.

SEC. 2. DEADLINE FOR FINAL CANVASS AND ASCERTAINMENT OF NUMBER OF VOTES CAST FOR PRESIDENT AND AVAILABILITY OF RECOUNT.
Section 5 of title 3, United States Code, is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘If any State’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—If any State’’ and by striking ‘‘concerning the appointment’’ and inserting ‘‘concerning the canvass or appointment’’.
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
‘‘(b) DEADLINE FOR FINAL DETERMINATION OF CANVASS OR ASCERTAINMENT OF VOTES CAST FOR PRESIDENT AND AVAILABILITY OF ACCELERATED INITIAL COUNT AND AVAILABILITY OF RECOUNT—
‘‘(1) DEADLINE FOR FINAL DETERMINATION.—The canvass or ascertainment under the laws of each state of the number of votes given or cast for each candidate for President or presidential elector and the final determination of any controversy or contest concerning such canvass of ascertainment shall be made not later than 6 days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors under section 7 of this title.

‘‘(2) PREPARATION OF PLAN FOR RECOUNT AND COSTS.— No later than 90 days before the time fixed for appointing electors under section 1 of this title, the state official or body that is authorized to conduct the canvass or ascertainment under the laws of each state of the number of votes given or cast for each candidate for President or presidential elector shall prepare, and make available to the public, a plan for accelerating the initial count of each ballot given or cast for each candidate for President or presidential elector in that state, with such accelerated initial count to be completed by November 30, and a plan for conducting a full recount involving a one-by-one examination (to the extent possible given the state’s voting equipment and procedures) of each ballot given or cast for each candidate for President or presidential elector in that state, with such recount to be completed by December 10. Such plan shall include standards (not inconsistent with state law) for determining voter intent for all cases that may be reasonably anticipated given the state’s voting equipment and procedures. Such plan shall include all reasonable incremental costs to the state associated with accelerating the initial count and all reasonable costs to the state for conducting the recount.

‘‘(3) ACCELERATION OF INITIAL COUNT.— If a candidate for the office of President appearing on the ballot in a given state (or a legal successor nominated in lieu of such candidate) shall, no later than 6 days after the time fixed for appointing electors under section 1 of this title, make a written request, accompanied by payment in full of the costs specified in the plan created under part (2) of this subsection, for accelerating the initial count, the state official or body that is authorized to conduct the canvass or ascertainment under the laws of each state of the number of votes given or cast for each candidate for President or elector shall conduct the initial count of the votes cast for each candidate for President or presidential elector, with such recount to be completed by November 30. If more than one candidate makes a request for accelerating the initial count in the state, the state shall divide the costs among the requesting candidates and refund any excess payments received.

‘‘(4) AVAILABILITY OF RECOUNT.— If a candidate for the office of President appearing on the ballot in a given state (or a legal successor nominated in lieu of such candidate) shall by December 2, make a written request, accompanied by payment in full of the costs specified in the plan created under part (2) of this subsection, for conducting a full recount involving a one-by-one examination (to the extent possible given the state’s voting equipment and procedures) of each ballot given or cast for each candidate for President or elector in a given state, the state official or body that is authorized to conduct the canvass or ascertainment under the laws of each state of the number of votes given or cast for each candidate for President or elector shall then conduct the a full recount of the votes cast for each candidate for President or presidential elector, with such recount to be completed by December 14. If more than one candidate makes a request for a recount in the state, the state shall divide the costs among the requesting candidates and refund any excess payments received.

‘‘(5) PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.— An individual who is a citizen of the United States who is a resident of the State involved or a candidate for the office of President appearing on the ballot in a given state (or a legal successor nominated in lieu of such candidate) may bring an action against the State in the United States district court located in the capital of the State involved (or the United States district court located nearest to the state capital if no United States district court is located in the capital) for such declaratory or injunctive relief as may be necessary to ensure that the State is in compliance with this title.’’

“(6) NON-PRE-EMPTION.— The recount made available under part (3) of this subsection shall be an option available to presidential candidates (or a legal successor nominated in lieu of such candidate) in addition to any procedure available under applicable state laws, administrative procedures, or judicial decisions.

SEC. 3. REQUIRING PROMPT TRANSMISSION OF CERTIFICATIONS.
Section 6 of title 3, United States Code, is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘as soon as practicable’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘immediately’’;
(2) by striking ‘‘to communicate by registered mail’’ and inserting ‘‘to communicate by overnight courier service’’; and
(3) by striking ‘‘to communicate under the seal of the State’’ and inserting ‘‘to communicate by overnight courier service under the seal of the State”.

SEC. 4. TIME FOR MEETING OF ELECTORAL COLLEGE.
Section 7 of title 3, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment’’ and inserting ‘‘30th day of December next following their appointment or the preceding Friday if December 30 is a Saturday or Sunday’’.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall apply to Presidential elections beginning with the elections held in November 2016.

"Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote " http://www.every-vote-equal.com/

[Fritz]

That's all very interesting, and completely off topic from the opening post.

[Supersonic]

I see no pressing reason to change despite Florida 2000.

[kohler]

That's all very interesting, and completely off topic from the opening post.

Completely on topic:
Section 7 of title 3, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment’’ and inserting ‘‘30th day of December next following their appointment or the preceding Friday if December 30 is a Saturday or Sunday’’.

[kohler]

Note, I explicitly did not include an option to eliminate the Electoral College since that would require a Constitutional amendment.

Completely on topic.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC), without needing to amend the Constitution.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Completely off topic, kohler.  We have other threads about going to a system that elects the President via the popular vote (either directly or the NPVIC).  This thread was intended to be about solely whether when the electors meet under the current system should change.

[kohler]

I see no pressing reason to change despite Florida 2000.

A change to a late December date for the Electoral College meeting would be highly beneficial to the operation of the current state-by-state winner-take-all method for awarding electoral votes because of the high frequency of disputes in presidential elections under the current system (five litigated state counts in a mere 57 presidential elections). Such a law would also be potentially beneficial under National Popular Vote, even though the probability of recounts would be much lower under a National Popular Vote because there would be a single large national pool of votes (instead of 51 separate pools).

Time is of the essence in conducting a recount in a presidential election. The U.S. Constitution establishes a strict overall national schedule for finalizing the results of a presidential election. In particular, the Constitution requires the Electoral College to meet on the same day throughout the United States (currently the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December).

Because of this firm deadline, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings (state or federal) must be conducted so as to reach a “final determination” prior to the uniform nationwide date for the meeting of the Electoral College. The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their “final determination” six days before the Electoral College meets (the so-called “safe harbor” date established by section 5 of Title 3 of the United States Code).

A key consideration in constructing a practical schedule for recounts in presidential elections is the fact that there cannot be a recount until there is a count. That is, a recount cannot be conducted until the official initial count is completed.

Given the actual practices of many states (including many of the closely divided battleground states), there would be no time to conduct a recount under the current system of electing the President.

The facts are that, under the current system, the possibility of conducting a timely recount of a presidential election is largely an illusion.

The precondition for conducting a full ballot-by-ballot recount of a presidential election is rapid completion of the initial count.

[ElectionsGuy]

I don't really care, as long as its before the inauguration and they vote correctly (according to their state; no "unfaithful" electors).

[⛄]

It is best that there not be any electoral college.