Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Electoral College’

In case you were wondering exactly how this Electoral College vote rolls out, here is a helpful summary from Emmarie Huetteman at the New York Times.

The Electoral College Is Meeting on Monday. Here’s What to Expect.

On Monday, 538 people will meet to determine who will be the next president.These meetings of the Electoral College, convened in every state and in the District of Columbia just shy of six weeks after Election Day, have long been little more than a formality.

But the victory of Donald J. Trump, who lost the popular vote but is projected to win the most electoral votes, has thrust the Electoral College into the spotlight once more.

President Obama on Friday described the Electoral College — originally a compromise between those who wanted Congress to choose the president and those who favored a popular vote — as a “vestige.” Here is a rundown of what comes next.

Who are the electors?

In short, the electors are people chosen by their state political parties to cast votes for president and vice president. Electors can be state party leaders or elected officials; sometimes they are individuals with a personal connection to a presidential candidate. Bill Clinton, for instance, is a New York elector this year.

The number of electors each state has is equal to its number of representatives and senators in Congress; there are 538 in total, including three from the District of Columbia.

What happens on Monday?

Electors will meet in their states, typically at the capitol, where they will cast two votes: one for president and one for vice president.

They will then prepare what is called a “certificate of vote” with the results, which is mailed or delivered via courier to the National Archives, where it becomes part of the nation’s official records, and to Congress.

Do electors have to vote according to popular vote results in their states?

Not necessarily. At least one elector has said he will buck his party and not vote for Mr. Trump. Nothing in the Constitution, or in federal law, binds electors to vote a particular way. There are some state laws that bind them to choose according to the popular vote in that state; others are bound by more informal pledges to their party.

Under some state laws, so-called faithless electors who vote against their state’s results may be fined or even disqualified and replaced.

No elector has been prosecuted for doing so, but then again, almost every elector has voted with his or her state’s results in the past. The Supreme Court has not weighed in on whether pledges and the related penalties are constitutional.

And that’s it?

Not quite. At that point, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., as the departing president of the Senate, will ask if there are any objections, and lawmakers can challenge either individual electoral votes or state results as a whole.

If an elector has chosen to vote against state results, that is the moment lawmakers can petition to throw that vote out.Objections must be in writing and signed by at least one member of the House and one member of the Senate.

If there are any objections, the House and Senate then immediately split up to consider them and have just two hours to decide whether they support the objection or not.

Both chambers will then reconvene and share their decisions; if both the House and the Senate agree with the objection, they will throw out the votes in question. But Congress has never sustained an objection to an electoral vote.

After any and all objections have been resolved, the results are considered final. The next step is to swear in the winner on Jan. 20.— EMMARIE HUETTEMAN

Read Full Post »

Whacked by a 2×4, out like a light, and waking up in a strange place wondering what happened. That is what the most bizarre presidential election in U.S. history felt like to tens of millions of Americans. Nearly three weeks later, many of us are wondering not only how we managed to fall through another rabbit hole, but also how Wonderland can possibly have become even curiouser than it was the last time we visited.

alice-and-dorothy

The whacking was not actually the election result as it was reported late into November 8 and early November 9. That was a shock and sudden loss. Most of us reacted normally to that. As with other types of devastating loss, there was the initial astonished paralysis immediately followed by anguish – much of it intense – and then the resolve to go on, somehow.

Trump cast aside established campaign traditions, releasing income tax records among them. A card that was frequently played by Donald Trump was the rigging card. If he did not win, here, there, and everywhere, it would be because the election was rigged. Near the end, he resisted a promise to accept the result. Hillary Clinton supporters rose in outrage. Our democratic tradition demanded that the vanquished accept the outcome.  The acceptance card was to become Trump’s trump card.

Crying foul at Trump’s failure to agree to accept the election result has proven a pitfall for those of us in the Hillary camp as the actual election results continue to roll out. The reason for this is twofold: 1) Except for the 2000 election when there was no clear winner immediately projected, elections tend to be conceded within a 24-hour period.  And then we move on. 2) Concessions are based, not on the actual vote, but upon projections with some percentage of the vote “in.” What comprises “in” is far from clear.

Here we are three weeks later. The election is history. Hillary Clinton’s concession is history and has been reaffirmed by her one post-election speech so far. Trump is not only the acknowledged victor, he has been awarded the title of President-elect and has begun, after a delayed start – hobbled by not actually having expected to win and therefore not having planned for it – the transition process in the murkiest, stickiest, sketchiest manner in recent memory. It would never do, at this point, for Hillary Clinton’s camp to challenge an already accepted result. So proceeds the oddest election aftermath of the oddest election ever where the most prepared and qualified candidate (her femininity aside – or perhaps not) v. the least prepared and qualified candidate ever.

The votes, however, are still being counted. The actual (as opposed to the projected) vote count is shaping up to manifest the largest gap between the popular and electoral vote in our history. The popular vote for Hillary Clinton is the second highest in our history. As the days go by, the dramatic gap between the popular and electoral vote grows and with it questions.

More overwhelmingly now than in 2000, we see a clear difference between who Americans voted for and who was elected – or will be on December 19 when the electors vote. The implications are discouraging for Hillary Clinton supporters, certainly, but more importantly for our country.

The Orwellian landscape that is our two-tiered general election system proposes that some votes, those of the electors, are more informed and decisive, i.e. better, than others – those of the general electorate, the populace. This is not the real picture, though. At the basis, the votes of people in some states count more than the votes of people in other states. It is unlikely that electors will vote in opposition to outcomes in their respective states. The fault is not so much in the existence of the Electoral College as in the apportionment of the votes. If it takes 3.5 Californians to equal one Wyoming voter, something is wrong.

all-animal-equal

The more dramatic the gap between the popular and electoral votes, the more troubling, and it is growing by the day. That some people’s votes count more heavily than others is a real problem in a democracy.

The Electoral College, as we know it today was established by the 12th Amendment and ratified by ¾ of state legislatures in 1804. It superseded the original design in Article II, Section 1.

The irony is that the same party that has spent the past almost eight years refusing to compromise touts the “wisdom of the Founders” in establishing the College while failing to note that it was the result of compromise. Not all compromises set up by the Founders have endured.  The Three-Fifths Compromise of 1787 was superseded by the 13th Amendment.

While it is certain that we have all heard our share of arguments about the “wisdom of the Founders” in the past two weeks, we can argue that it should not take multiple votes from some states to equal a single vote from another in the electoral system. That concept is as outdated, outrageous, unfair, and duplicitous as counting slaves as property in one regard and people in another.  Not everything the Founders laid out was wise and set in stone.

After elections,  the custom is to say, “The people have spoken.” It is fair when all have been given an equal voice, not when some and not others have been provided a megaphone.

While we are on the subject of fairness, this arises.

A Fair Election? Serious Questions Arise About Trump Vote Totals In Key Swing States

These are the fishiest election results ever. We will keep watch till the last vote is counted! That CNN page gets updated pretty regularly.

This is just a snapshot as of 11/25, but eloquent.

There remain these issues. Hope everyone is recovering.

Read Full Post »

What else would you call a body as anachronistic and outdated as the Electoral College? Reading through comment threads today clarified for me the divide in our nation. The Jedi mind-trick in defending the existence of the Electoral College involves somehow rationalizing the ascendancy and predominance of the minority. The problem, really, is not so much that there is an Electoral College.  It is more a problem of proportion and ratio.  There is nothing proportional in the allocation of electoral votes.

Those arguing in favor of the College as it stands have told me, more times than I cared to hear, that the College prevents, in various arguments, the east and west coasts, or New York and California, or New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles from dominating presidential elections.

We have heard all the arguments about the Founders and their wisdom in establishing this body and yada, yada, yada. This is the 21st century.  We are a diverse, well-educated, connected populace. When twice in a generation such a glaring discrepancy turns up between the popular and the electoral vote, it is time to make changes.  Here is what Senator Barbara Boxer wants to do about it and how you can get on board.

After signing on, contact your own senators and ask them to  support Senator Boxer’s initiative.

 

Still,

For the second time in our lifetime, the winner of the popular vote lost the presidency.

Hillary Clinton will likely end up with ‎two million votes more than Donald Trump. She already leads by more than a million votes.

The presidency is the only office in our nation where you can get more votes and still lose. The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system — and it’s time we abolish it for good.

Yesterday, I introduced legislation in the Senate to eliminate the Electoral College so the winner of presidential elections is determined by the outcome of the popular vote.

Will you stand with me — and our democracy — and add your name in support of my legislation to amend the Constitution of the United States to abolish the Electoral College?

Every American should have the guarantee that their vote will count. Even President-elect Donald Trump agrees. In 2012, he tweeted, “The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.”

The Electoral College just doesn’t reflect our modern society, and it needs to be changed immediately. Every American should be guaranteed that their vote counts. One person, one vote!

Now more than ever, we must all come together and end this outdated system.

Will you add your name today in support of my legislation to abolish the Electoral College?

Thank you for standing with me in this fight.

In Friendship,

Barbara Boxer
U.S. Senator

 

05-06-16-g-04

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: