quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

Yes it is a thing. And the interesting part is that the electors don't vote till December and the House doesn't count the votes til January. Obama's term ends Jan 20th i believe and if a new president wasn't agreed upon by then, the Speaker of the House (Ryan) would assume the Presidency in the interim. Then if they elected him after that it would be an easy transition since he was already there.

quote:

Btw, you might wish to check out the new series on ABC called "Designated Survivor" where the Capitol building is bombed during a State of the Union Address, and all (almost) are killed. The episodes are aired every two weeks on Wednesdays. The fifth episode aired two days ago.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

Yes it is a thing. And the interesting part is that the electors don't vote till December and the House doesn't count the votes til January. Obama's term ends Jan 20th i believe and if a new president wasn't agreed upon by then, the Speaker of the House (Ryan) would assume the Presidency in the interim. Then if they elected him after that it would be an easy transition since he was already there.

The timing doesn't change the numbers. HRC is looking at 340 to a possible 400 electoral votes, so the rest is merely conversation.

Only if the electors vote with the popular vote which in most states, they don't have to. They can vote for anybody they want, or no one at all.

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states. Some states, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties. (27 states)

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.

HERE

In other states, electors are legally independent actors who are free to cast their electoral votes for whomever they like. But in practice, anyone who’s on a party’s slate of electors in a state is going to be a staunch party loyalist who will back their pledged candidate anyway.

That kind of defeats the purpose now.... doesn't it?

quote:

“Yet again, Hillary Clinton has nobody but herself to blame,” Ryan said in a statement. “She was entrusted with some of our nation’s most important secrets, and she betrayed that trust by carelessly mishandling highly classified information.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Sorry, I think I was mistaken.

If the Electoral College fails to produce a majority of votes the election goes to the House of Representatives. It is they who elect the new president.

The Designated Survivor is fascinating because not only is there a DS for the presidency there is also one for the Congress. Of course, in the drama the two are not in agreement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: montanasubboy

Just for a minute lets say Hilary wins out right. Charges are brought. She then pardons her self. Then she is impeached but would she step down would there be the votes in congress to remover her?

In your hypothetical situation I think Obama would pardon her before she took office.

The House could impeach her for something she did while in office only.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: tamaka

I think all of you that laugh at me should have to buy me drinks if i am right. ; )


I am all fore that. If you are wrong do all of those who laughed at your idea get a blow job?
Just for the record I am laughing at your idea but just to show you what a sport I am I will supply you with a pair of industrial quality knee pads.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

Yes it is a thing. And the interesting part is that the electors don't vote till December and the House doesn't count the votes til January. Obama's term ends Jan 20th i believe and if a new president wasn't agreed upon by then, the Speaker of the House (Ryan) would assume the Presidency in the interim. Then if they elected him after that it would be an easy transition since he was already there.

The timing doesn't change the numbers. HRC is looking at 340 to a possible 400 electoral votes, so the rest is merely conversation.

Only if the electors vote with the popular vote which in most states, they don't have to. They can vote for anybody they want, or no one at all.

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states. Some states, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties. (27 states)

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.

HERE

In other states, electors are legally independent actors who are free to cast their electoral votes for whomever they like. But in practice, anyone who’s on a party’s slate of electors in a state is going to be a staunch party loyalist who will back their pledged candidate anyway.

That kind of defeats the purpose now.... doesn't it?

What purpose ? Either we go with what we have or demonstrate for the dissolution of the electoral college.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka
I think that the electorates that are able to will submit blank ballots reasoning that neither HRC or DT are suitable for office. This will ensure neither gets the majority EC votes which will force the election to go to the House of Representatives and they will choose Paul Ryan. I always used to think the Electoral College was a negative, but now in this light it really is shows the amazing foresight and thoughtfulness our Founding Fathers had when they set up everything.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka
Yes it is a thing. And the interesting part is that the electors don't vote till December and the House doesn't count the votes til January. Obama's term ends Jan 20th i believe and if a new president wasn't agreed upon by then, the Speaker of the House (Ryan) would assume the Presidency in the interim. Then if they elected him after that it would be an easy transition since he was already there.

Interesting point but I don't believe Ryan would automatically ascend to the presidency. He is in line to replace the president and vice-president if they cannot continue. Take a look at the 1876 election. Florida refused to send electors to Washington. They were pissed about Union troops stationed in the vanquished South. The presidential election ended without a clear winner of electral votes, although Tilden of New York had a clear majority of the popular vote. The Republican (?) Rutherford B Hayes I think negotiated for the Florida electors. The troops were pulled and the Posse Comitatus Act was passed.

quote:

In the case of an Electoral College deadlock or if no candidate receives the majority of votes, a “contingent election” is held. The election of the President goes to the House of Representatives. Each state delegation casts one vote for one of the top three contenders to determine a winner.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

I doubt there would be enough time for Obama to pardon her because she would have to be tried and convicted by then.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

I think that the electorates that are able to will submit blank ballots reasoning that neither HRC or DT are suitable for office. This will ensure neither gets the majority EC votes which will force the election to go to the House of Representatives and they will choose Paul Ryan. I always used to think the Electoral College was a negative, but now in this light it really is shows the amazing foresight and thoughtfulness our Founding Fathers had when they set up everything.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

I think that the electorates that are able to will submit blank ballots reasoning that neither HRC or DT are suitable for office. This will ensure neither gets the majority EC votes which will force the election to go to the House of Representatives and they will choose Paul Ryan. I always used to think the Electoral College was a negative, but now in this light it really is shows the amazing foresight and thoughtfulness our Founding Fathers had when they set up everything.

Blank ballots simply mean fewer people choose that states electoral votes, not that those votes won't be determined. It ensures nothing of the kind. Additionally, when the House decides an election, that decision is among the top three candidates--none of whom will be Paul Ryan.