 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
fb274
Ensign
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 53
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:58 pm Post subject: 22 STATES-REPS-- ELECT.COLLEGE CAN CAST VOTES AGAINST WINNER |
 |
|
Do we want to start the calling, emailing to medias, congressional representatives to see if we can get some traction if for some reason Bush should not win and before the Electoral College Meets Dec. 13.
From local paper-----(had forgotten about the following from my civics classes back in the "dark age"):
as one of the state's 34 Republican electors, he could cast his vote for Sen. John Kerry, even if Texas voters back Bush.
Texas is one of 22 states that doesn't require members of its electoral college to vote in alignment with the results of Tuesday's election. The 538-member electoral college gathers on Dec. 13 to select the nation's next president, based on Tuesday's election.
Does anyone know without having to do a search which the other 21 states besides Texas who can split electoral votes?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/laws.html
~~~~~~~~~~
Election Day is Tuesday, November 2, 2004
What is the Electoral College?
State Laws and Requirements
List of Electors Bound by State Law and Pledges, as of November 2000
Source: Congressional Research Service
The Office of the Federal Register presents this material for informational purposes only, in response to numerous public inquiries. The list has no legal significance. It is based on information compiled by the Congressional Research Service. For more comprehensive information, refer to the statutory provisions provided.
For a discussion of this topic, see "Must electors vote for the candidate who won their State's popular vote?" in the Electoral College FAQ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Legal Requirement
Electors in these States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate:
ARIZONA - 10 Electoral Votes
ARKANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes
DELAWARE - 3 Electoral Votes
GEORGIA - 15 Electoral Votes
IDAHO - 4 Electoral Votes
ILLINOIS - 21 Electoral Votes
INDIANA - 11 Electoral Votes
IOWA - 7 Electoral Votes
KANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes
KENTUCKY - 8 Electoral Votes
LOUISIANA - 9 Electoral Votes
MINNESOTA - 10 Electoral Votes
MISSOURI - 11 Electoral Votes
NEW HAMPSHIRE - 4 Electoral Votes
NEW JERSEY - 15 Electoral Votes
NEW YORK - 31 Electoral Votes
NORTH DAKOTA - 3 Electoral Votes
PENNSYLVANIA - 21 Electoral Votes
RHODE ISLAND - 4 Electoral Votes
SOUTH DAKOTA - 3 Electoral Votes
TENNESSEE - 11 Electoral Votes
TEXAS - 34 Electoral Votes
UTAH - 5 Electoral Votes
WEST VIRGINIA - 5 Electoral Votes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Requirements or Pledges
Electors in these States are bound by State Law or by pledges to cast their vote for a specific candidate:
ALABAMA - 9 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law - § 17-19-2
ALASKA - 3 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law - § 15.30.040; 15.30.070
CALIFORNIA - 55 Electoral Votes
State Law - § 6906
COLORADO - 9 Electoral Votes
State Law - § 1-4-304
CONNECTICUT - 7 Electoral Votes
State Law § 9-175
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA - 3 Electoral Votes
DC Pledge / DC Law - § 1-1312(g)
FLORIDA - 27 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law - § 103.021(1)
HAWAII - 4 Electoral Votes
State Law - §§ 14-26 to 14-28
MAINE - 4 Electoral Votes
State Law - § 805
MARYLAND - 10 Electoral Votes
State Law - § 20-4
MASSACHUSETTS - 12 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law - Ch. 53, § 8, Supp.
MICHIGAN - 17 Electoral Votes
State Law - §168.47 (Violation cancels vote and elector is replaced).
MISSISSIPPI - 6 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law - §23-15-785(3)
MONTANA - 3 Electoral Votes
State Law - §13-25-104
NEBRASKA - 5 Electoral Votes
State Law - § 32-714
NEVADA - 5 Electoral Votes
State Law - § 298.050
NEW MEXICO - 5 Electoral Votes
State Law - § 1-15-5 to 1-15-9 (Violation is a fourth degree felony.)
NORTH CAROLINA - 15 Electoral Votes
State Law - § 163-212 (Violation cancels vote; elector is replaced and is subject to $500 fine.)
OHIO - 20 Electoral Votes
State Law - § 3505.40
OKLAHOMA - 7 Electoral Votes
State Pledge / State Law - 26, §§ 10-102; 10-109 (Violation of oath is a misdemeanor, carrying a fine of up to $1000.)
OREGON - 7 Electoral Votes
State Pledge / State Law - § 248.355
SOUTH CAROLINA - 8 Electoral Votes
State Pledge / State Law - § 7-19-80 (Replacement and criminal sanctions for violation.)
VERMONT - 3 Electoral Votes
State Law - title 17, § 2732
* VIRGINIA - 13 Electoral Votes
State Law - § 24.1-162 (Virginia statute may be advisory - "Shall be expected" to vote for nominees.)
WASHINGTON - 11 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law - §§ 29.71.020, 29.71.040, Supp. ($1000 fine.)
WISCONSIN - 10 Electoral Votes
State Law - § 7.75
WYOMING - 3 Electoral Votes
State Law - §§ 22-19-106; 22-19-108
Last edited by fb274 on Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:49 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
armyairbournebrat
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 19 Sep 2004
Posts: 27
Location: ohio
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are 48 States that have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these states, whichever candidate receives a majority of the vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate) takes all of the state's electoral votes.
Only two states, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those states, there could be a split of electoral votes among candidates through the state's system for proportional allocation of votes. For example, Maine has four electoral votes and two congressional districts. It awards one electoral vote per congressional district and two by the state-wide, "at-large" vote. It is possible for Candidate A to win the first district and receive one electoral vote, Candidate B to win the second district and receive one electoral vote, and Candidate C, who finished a close second in both the first and second districts, to win the two at-large electoral votes. Although this is a possible scenario, it has not actually occurred in recent elections.
Does this help?
_________________
A VOTE FOR BUSH IS A VOTE AGAINST KERRY |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JCJR
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 114
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| armyairbournebrat wrote: | There are 48 States that have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these states, whichever candidate receives a majority of the vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate) takes all of the state's electoral votes.
Only two states, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those states, there could be a split of electoral votes among candidates through the state's system for proportional allocation of votes. For example, Maine has four electoral votes and two congressional districts. It awards one electoral vote per congressional district and two by the state-wide, "at-large" vote. It is possible for Candidate A to win the first district and receive one electoral vote, Candidate B to win the second district and receive one electoral vote, and Candidate C, who finished a close second in both the first and second districts, to win the two at-large electoral votes. Although this is a possible scenario, it has not actually occurred in recent elections.
|
I think what was asked-- In a winner-takes-all state, if dems win, the pre-selected democrat electors get to go to the electoral college, or vice-versa.
Once an elector is selected, the elector is not required to vote for his party's candidate. A dem elector can vote Bush, or vice-versa. The turn-coat might become very unpopular, and it might be prudent if he moves and changes his name afterward (GRIN). But in many states they can't put him in jail for switching.
In some cases this system might have good justification. At the beginning of the USA, they didn't know that we would devolve to a two-party system. Some founding fathers viewed political parties as an obscenity.
If we had developed numerous regional parties, it may have been necessary for electors to change votes at the electoral college. If an elector's state really wants candidate A, but candidates B and C are the only ones close to a majority, the candidate A electors might need to decide whether B or C is the lesser of two evils. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Geano
Lieutenant
Joined: 28 Aug 2004
Posts: 237
Location: Kentucky
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ironically, Kentucky requires Party delegates National Party convention to vote according to the winner of the Primary election. They are free to vote as they choose after the first ballot....
Skerry Squashed
MSM MIC MISFIRES
| Quote: | A declaration that the results of the presidential preference primary, in accordance with the division of votes reflected by the official canvass, shall be the official vote cast by each political party at its national convention, on the first ballot only, and shall be designated by KRS 118.551 to 118.651 as an automatic vote, expressing the
will of the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky; and
(4) After the vote on the first ballot by the political party at its national convention, as required by this section, all responsibility under KRS 118.551 to 118.651 shall terminate and further balloting shall be the prerogative of the political parties as might be prescribed by the rules of such political parties.
Effective: July 15, 1986
History: Created 1986 Ky. Acts ch. 29, sec. 9, effective July 15, 1986. |
_________________
MSM Lead Nov 3 2004 "Kerry Oval Office Hopes killed by 10,000 Mice..."
Candidate had declared mice "only a nuisance".
States they "moved too Swiftly"....
Last edited by Geano on Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:25 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fb274
Ensign
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 53
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Geano
Lieutenant
Joined: 28 Aug 2004
Posts: 237
Location: Kentucky
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I Corrected my post above also....
_________________
MSM Lead Nov 3 2004 "Kerry Oval Office Hopes killed by 10,000 Mice..."
Candidate had declared mice "only a nuisance".
States they "moved too Swiftly".... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
