Electoral College Question for the Big Brains Here

[John Camp]

Two states, Maine and Nebraska, cast their electoral college votes based on presidential winners in individual federal House districts. That suggests to me that the method of choosing electors its not fixed by the Constitution. Given that, would it be possible that the Congress could pass a law that required ALL states to uses the House district model, rather than winner-take-all on a statewide basis? If that could be done, I think we'd be much more likely to get a result in the Electoral College that would more closely resemble the popular vote. For example, Republicans would win in Orange County, California, and Democrats would win in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties in Florida. Republicans would win in upstate New York and downstate Illinois, and Democrats would win in Atlanta and Houston.

[James Clark]

Two states, Maine and Nebraska, cast their electoral college votes based on presidential winners in individual federal House districts. That suggests to me that the method of choosing electors its not fixed by the Constitution. Given that, would it be possible that the Congress could pass a law that required ALL states to uses the House district model, rather than winner-take-all on a statewide basis? If that could be done, I think we'd be much more likely to get a result in the Electoral College that would more closely resemble the popular vote. For example, Republicans would win in Orange County, California, and Democrats would win in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties in Florida. Republicans would win in upstate New York and downstate Illinois, and Democrats would win in Atlanta and Houston.

You're correct that any given state could elect to do that, however Congress could not mandate it (short of advancing a Constitutional amendment) because, as you correctly surmised,  the "manner" of selecting electors is specifically delegated to the states, Constitutionally. But, the "winner take all" method benefits the party in power, so there's little incentive for whomever is in charge to change it.

[TechTalk]

As a side note, each state receives electors equal to their number of senators and representatives. Maine and Nebraska split the allocation of their electoral votes between statewide electors and district electors. As each state has two senators, Maine and Nebraska allocate two electoral votes based on the popular vote statewide and the remaining electoral votes are allocated based on the popular vote in each congressional district with one elector for each district.

[stamper]

It's 4th November. From now, this thread is the only place at The Luminous Landscape in which political discussion (including discussion of climate change) is permitted: see here for more information.

It looks like this declaration from the Bear Pit thread has been forgotten???

[James Clark]

It's 4th November. From now, this thread is the only place at The Luminous Landscape in which political discussion (including discussion of climate change) is permitted: see here for more information.

It looks like this declaration from the Bear Pit thread has been forgotten???

This is more of a history/law/structure question as I read it?

[Frans Waterlander]

This is politics and belongs in the Bear Pit thread. Shame on you.

[Alan Klein]

I agree this is more education and history rather than politics. 

In any case, when I go to the race track, I bet to Win.  Chickens vote to Place or Show.  What's the point of having the electors split in your state let's say 53 to 47?  You might as well have no election.  States who do this have no power, no influence.  So you have to put up all the marbles.  Go for broke. Take them all or take nothing.  It also will encourage third parties weakening the two major parties.  So they're against it.

[Jeremy Roussak]

I'm watching it. Other than the original form of James's first post, which he has now amended, it seems to me that this is not accurately characterised as a political discussion. As long as it stays that way (and Alan is pushing the boundary), I'm content for it to remain.

Jeremy

[digitaldog]

This is politics and belongs in the Bear Pit thread. Shame on you.

You sure have gone out of your way not to post on the topic but to tell us how you prefer censorship. Maybe let Jeremy do his job and move aside?

This is more of a history/law/structure question as I read it?

+1
https://ballotpedia.org/Why_do_states_have_different_election_rules%3F_(2020)

Election rules vary widely among states because states, rather than the federal government, play the primary role in creating policy on elections administration. State legislatures and ballot measures create many of the rules governing ballot access, voter registration, and vote counting.

The states’ authority to set elections policy encompasses not just state and local elections but also congressional elections. The Elections Clause in Article I of the U.S. Constitution gives states the power to set the “Times, Places, and Manner” of congressional elections. According to a common interpretation, the clause allows states to create “rules concerning public notices, voter registration, voter protection, fraud prevention, vote counting, and determination of election results.”[3] However, the clause also holds that any laws Congress may pass regulating congressional elections would preempt state law.[3]

IMHO, it's a good way to run elections, letting each state independently do this. YMMV.

[James Clark]

I'm watching it. Other than the original form of James's first post, which he has now amended, it seems to me that this is not accurately characterised as a political discussion. As long as it stays that way (and Alan is pushing the boundary), I'm content for it to remain.

Jeremy

Yes - amended specifically to avoid the editorialism.  Thanks for the leeway.

[John Camp]

Yes - amended specifically to avoid the editorialism.  Thanks for the leeway.

As the OP, I pretty much thought the question was settled with the first two answers, and no further answers were necessary. It turns out the method *is* fixed by the Constitution -- that is, the states decide how to do it, and the feds don't have a role. This seems somewhat dangerous to me, leaving an opening for a runaway legislature, but, it is what it is.

[Alan Klein]

This is more of a history/law/structure question as I read it?

As the OP, I pretty much thought the question was settled with the first two answers, and no further answers were necessary. It turns out the method *is* fixed by the Constitution -- that is, the states decide how to do it, and the feds don't have a role. This seems somewhat dangerous to me, leaving an opening for a runaway legislature, but, it is what it is.

The founders of our Constitution were more concerned with an all-powerful central government.  Leaving the power to decide voting procedures including who can run as well as the selection of the electors to each of the sovereign states, would continue to dilute that power. Of course, the need to obtain a 50% majority of the electoral vote pushed the country to two-parties.  That was something I don't think they predicted.  I think it limited the selection process to often rather ho-hum candidates as we have seen many times.  Of course, we're still here.  So maybe it's working out in the long run.

[Petrus]

On January 6th the Congress votes to accept the Electoral College voting result making the selection final, finally.

If at least two members (one senator + congressman) contests the result from a State, the Senate and the House can discuss the matter for maximum of 2 hours, and then vote about the matter.

So, let's speculate that 2 rogue members decide to contest the EC result of every state, then filibuster for 2 hours every time, followed by a slow voting procedure. This would probably take about 4 hours per state, 200 hours total.

Could the result be declared legally before the deadline, noon on January 20th?

[Alan Klein]

On January 6th the Congress votes to accept the Electoral College voting result making the selection final, finally.

If at least two members (one senator + congressman) contests the result from a State, the Senate and the House can discuss the matter for maximum of 2 hours, and then vote about the matter.

So, let's speculate that 2 rogue members decide to contest the EC result of every state, then filibuster for 2 hours every time, followed by a slow voting procedure. This would probably take about 4 hours per state, 200 hours total.

Could the result be declared legally before the deadline, noon on January 20th?

This happened recently in 2005 when Democrats objected to Republican George Bush's electoral votes from Ohio. Apparently, cows have a better chance of growing b@lls.

If there is an objection to an elector or electors on January 6, 2021, there is a recent precedent. In January 2005, Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Senator Barbara Boxer objected to Ohio’s electoral votes for George W. Bush, alleging “they were not in all known circumstances regularly given.” The House and Senate met separately as required and using a roll call vote the objections were widely rejected. The House denied the objection in 31-267 vote, and the Senate denied it in a 1-74 vote.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/explaining-how-congress-settles-electoral-college-disputes

[Petrus]

This happened recently in 2005 when Democrats objected to Republican George Bush's electoral votes from Ohio. Apparently, cows have a better chance of growing b@lls.

If there is an objection to an elector or electors on January 6, 2021, there is a recent precedent. In January 2005, Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Senator Barbara Boxer objected to Ohio’s electoral votes for George W. Bush, alleging “they were not in all known circumstances regularly given.” The House and Senate met separately as required and using a roll call vote the objections were widely rejected. The House denied the objection in 31-267 vote, and the Senate denied it in a 1-74 vote.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/explaining-how-congress-settles-electoral-college-disputes

That was only one state. How long did it take? My question was: what happens if all 50 states were contested? Would the senate/house meetings and roll call votes take so long that the election result could not be confirmed before noon January 20th?

[digitaldog]

That was only one state. How long did it take? My question was: what happens if all 50 states were contested? Would the senate/house meetings and roll call votes take so long that the election result could not be confirmed before noon January 20th?

He can't answer your question. Warning: If he tries, it's likely back to the Bear Pit.
It IS a fascinating question.

[TechTalk]

On January 6th the Congress votes to accept the Electoral College voting result making the selection final, finally.

If at least two members (one senator + congressman) contests the result from a State, the Senate and the House can discuss the matter for maximum of 2 hours, and then vote about the matter.

So, let's speculate that 2 rogue members decide to contest the EC result of every state, then filibuster for 2 hours every time, followed by a slow voting procedure. This would probably take about 4 hours per state, 200 hours total.

Could the result be declared legally before the deadline, noon on January 20th?

In the event that one or more objection is filed, they should be able to dispense with them pretty swiftly. If both Houses are unable to agree on a slate of electors for a state, then under 3 U.S. Code § 15, the electors certified by the governor of a state are the electors whose votes are counted—"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." All of the states have certified their elections with their governor's seal.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3 U.S. Code § 15

In the event that neither a President or Vice President is chosen by noon on January 20th, the Speaker of the House becomes the Acting President until a President has been chosen in Congress under the 20th Amendment § 3 and 3 U.S. Code § 19.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxx

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3 U.S. Code § 19 - Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President

[digitaldog]

In the event that neither a President or Vice President is chosen by noon on January 20th, the Speaker of the House becomes the Acting President until a President has been chosen in Congress under the 20th Amendment § 3 and 3 U.S. Code § 19.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxx

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3 U.S. Code § 19 - Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President

Ahh, Acting President Pelosi. I guess the Filibuster technique is dead on arrival.👍

[John Camp]

On January 6th the Congress votes to accept the Electoral College voting result making the selection final, finally.

If at least two members (one senator + congressman) contests the result from a State, the Senate and the House can discuss the matter for maximum of 2 hours, and then vote about the matter.

So, let's speculate that 2 rogue members decide to contest the EC result of every state, then filibuster for 2 hours every time, followed by a slow voting procedure. This would probably take about 4 hours per state, 200 hours total.

Could the result be declared legally before the deadline, noon on January 20th?

The Senate and House can debate for a maximum of two hours. So in the Senate, each member would be allotted a little over a minute to talk. If an objector used up his slightly more than a minute, then nobody else wanted to talk, they would close the debate and vote.

[Petrus]

The Senate and House can debate for a maximum of two hours. So in the Senate, each member would be allotted a little over a minute to talk. If an objector used up his slightly more than a minute, then nobody else wanted to talk, they would close the debate and vote.

I do not think the 120 minutes would be devided by the number of members of Senate or the House. That would mean each congressman would get only 16.6 seconds, making meaningful discussion impossible. That is not the way it works.