following

The Debt said:

---

Just went down the rabbit hole with that Foley analysis about a contested election and apparently it's got some legs among the lawyers of twitter.

Supposedly the VP has the authority to reject electors from a contested election (say GA and PA). If neither Trump of Biden end up with 270 because not enough Electors....it gets bumped to the states.

Is this fiction? The hypothetical.

---

If no 270, then it goes to the HOR. As I understand it.

The Debt said:

---

Just went down the rabbit hole with that Foley analysis about a contested election and apparently it's got some legs among the lawyers of twitter.

Supposedly if the VP has the authority to reject electors from a contested election (say GA and PA). If neither Trump of Biden end up with 270 because not enough Electors....it gets bumped to the states.

Is this fiction? The hypothetical.

---

If no candidate receives a majority of the certified electors vote, then it would go to the House. If electors are rejected, then are they still considered to be certified electors? If not, then the number needed to win should be the majority of those that remain certified electors.

I don't know about the VP having the authority to reject electors. The House and Senate can reject electors, but they would have to agree. Even if the Senate were to reject some electors, what are the odds that the House would reject them as well?

There can be dueling electors under unusual circumstances in which more than one set of electors in a state has been certified. Congress can then choose which of dueling sets of electors to accept. If both houses don't agree, then it appears that the set of electors arising from the election takes precedence. However, that is from the Electoral Count Act which is reportedly quite poorly understood.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

The Debt said:

---

Just went down the rabbit hole with that Foley analysis about a contested election and apparently it's got some legs among the lawyers of twitter.

Supposedly the VP has the authority to reject electors from a contested election (say GA and PA). If neither Trump of Biden end up with 270 because not enough Electors....it gets bumped to the states.

Is this fiction? The hypothetical.

---

If no 270, then it goes to the HOR. As I understand it.

---

It has to be a majority of the certified electors.

If some state failed to certify their electors, then a candidate could possibly win the Electoral College with fewer than 270 votes.

Yes. But that's the contingent election whereas the states get one single vote in the HOR.

Quote:

---

Supposedly the VP has the authority to reject electors from a contested election (say GA and PA). .

---

Where is this in the constitution?

Ahh yes, another "new friend" emerging from their basement after the election...

Is this the latest election fantasy?

Our national elections are now run by corrupt children !

Lawrence Sullivan Ross said:

---

Why such a discrepancy between Florida and Georgia?

---

Florida got their crap together with election policies and Georgia did not.

Lawrence Sullivan Ross said:

---

Why such a discrepancy between Florida and Georgia?

---

When was the last time a candidate lost both Florida and Ohio and won the election? Has this ever happened?

It's been explained to him before,

The Debt said:

---

Just went down the rabbit hole with that Foley analysis about a contested election and apparently it's got some legs among the lawyers of twitter.

Supposedly the VP has the authority to reject electors from a contested election (say GA and PA). If neither Trump of Biden end up with 270 because not enough Electors....it gets bumped to the states.

Is this fiction? The hypothetical.

---

No it's not.

Between the terms of the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C Section 15, he is still the leader of the Senate at the time the certifications from the states are read counted and accepted or not.

Gigem314 said:

---

Lawrence Sullivan Ross said:

---

Why such a discrepancy between Florida and Georgia?

---

Florida got their crap together with election policies and Georgia did not.

---

Atlanta is the corrupt Detroit of the South!

eric76 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

The Debt said:

---

Just went down the rabbit hole with that Foley analysis about a contested election and apparently it's got some legs among the lawyers of twitter.

Supposedly the VP has the authority to reject electors from a contested election (say GA and PA). If neither Trump of Biden end up with 270 because not enough Electors....it gets bumped to the states.

Is this fiction? The hypothetical.

---

If no 270, then it goes to the HOR. As I understand it.

---

It has to be a majority of the certified electors.

If some state failed to certify their electors, then a candidate could possibly win the Electoral College with fewer than 270 votes.

---

This has not been settled.

In the past, 3 times the denominator has been the number of electors sent. One other time, it was the total number of electors appointed to the states. In none of those four circumstances did it make a difference in the election. The statutes can easily be interpreted either way. SCOTUS has never weighed in.

The fact is, whoever controls the senate likely gets to make that determination due to the way the constitution is written.

BusterAg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

The Debt said:

---

Just went down the rabbit hole with that Foley analysis about a contested election and apparently it's got some legs among the lawyers of twitter.

Supposedly the VP has the authority to reject electors from a contested election (say GA and PA). If neither Trump of Biden end up with 270 because not enough Electors....it gets bumped to the states.

Is this fiction? The hypothetical.

---

If no 270, then it goes to the HOR. As I understand it.

---

It has to be a majority of the certified electors.

If some state failed to certify their electors, then a candidate could possibly win the Electoral College with fewer than 270 votes.

---

This has not been settled.

In the past, 3 times the denominator has been the number of electors sent. One other time, it was the total number of electors appointed to the states. In none of those four circumstances did it make a difference in the election. The statutes can easily be interpreted either way. SCOTUS has never weighed in.

The fact is, whoever controls the senate likely gets to make that determination due to the way the constitution is written.

---

From Amendment Twelve:

Quote:

---

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.

---

It clearly depends on "the whole number of Electors appointed".

Quote:

---

In the past, 3 times the denominator has been the number of electors sent. One other time, it was the total number of electors appointed to the states

---

What are the years for each of these?

eric76 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

The Debt said:

---

Just went down the rabbit hole with that Foley analysis about a contested election and apparently it's got some legs among the lawyers of twitter.

Supposedly the VP has the authority to reject electors from a contested election (say GA and PA). If neither Trump of Biden end up with 270 because not enough Electors....it gets bumped to the states.

Is this fiction? The hypothetical.

---

If no 270, then it goes to the HOR. As I understand it.

---

It has to be a majority of the certified electors.

If some state failed to certify their electors, then a candidate could possibly win the Electoral College with fewer than 270 votes.

---

This has not been settled.

In the past, 3 times the denominator has been the number of electors sent. One other time, it was the total number of electors appointed to the states. In none of those four circumstances did it make a difference in the election. The statutes can easily be interpreted either way. SCOTUS has never weighed in.

The fact is, whoever controls the senate likely gets to make that determination due to the way the constitution is written.

---

From Amendment Twelve:

Quote:

---

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.

---

It clearly depends on "the whole number of Electors appointed".

---

Here is the argument:

Electors appointed to each state for the election? or
Electors appointed by the state to vote in the election.

The latter has been followed more times than the former, but both have been practiced in the past.

But you are being disingenuous if you don't acknowledge there is some ambiguity there.

Panama Red said:

---

Quote:

---

In the past, 3 times the denominator has been the number of electors sent. One other time, it was the total number of electors appointed to the states

---

What are the years for each of these?

---

Taking a quick lunch break. I found it in a report that talks about this very subject. I will have to look for it.

To be fair, the report seems to insinuate that 1) eric's interpretation is a little more likely; and 2) since this has never had an impact on the outcome of an election, it is a very open issue.

BusterAg said:

---

Panama Red said:

---

Quote:

---

In the past, 3 times the denominator has been the number of electors sent. One other time, it was the total number of electors appointed to the states

---

What are the years for each of these?

---

Taking a quick lunch break. I found it in a report that talks about this very subject. I will have to look for it.

To be fair, the report seems to insinuate that 1) eric's interpretation is a little more likely; and 2) since this has never had an impact on the outcome of an election, it is a very open issue.

---

Thanks.

When I first came across the Electoral Count Act of 1877, I tried reading the details to figure it out, but had to give up after figuring out nothing. I'm basically stuck with deferring to those who interpret it that way considering that it seems to be the whole reason for the act.

eric76 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Panama Red said:

---

Quote:

---

In the past, 3 times the denominator has been the number of electors sent. One other time, it was the total number of electors appointed to the states

---

What are the years for each of these?

---

Taking a quick lunch break. I found it in a report that talks about this very subject. I will have to look for it.

To be fair, the report seems to insinuate that 1) eric's interpretation is a little more likely; and 2) since this has never had an impact on the outcome of an election, it is a very open issue.

---

Thanks.

When I first came across the Electoral Count Act of 1877, I tried reading the details to figure it out, but had to give up after figuring out nothing. I'm basically stuck with deferring to those who interpret it that way considering that it seems to be the whole reason for the act.

---

The reason for the Electoral Count act is that, after the civil war, you had states in the south with two groups of people that claimed themselves to be the legitimate legislatures of that state, and both of those groups of people sent a slate of electors to DC.

There was a real constitutional crisis on how to handle that in 1876. So, they fixed that problem in 1877. How do you handle a situation where a state is so dysfunctional that it sends more electors than it should? The Act tells how.

Here's a paper that goes into the history of "whole number of electors appointed" at length:

https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20001213_RL30769_155e02b4145b1308f6d239a8ac64d811e2935730.pdf

I was incorrect, it was 4 years where votes not given reduced the denominator to 1 year where it did not. None were determinative. Both sides have been argued by Congress.

So, it favors lowering the denominator, but the issue is far from decided.

Tomorrow, Tuesday, January December 8, 2020, is Safe Harbor Day.

As I understand it, the votes of electors certified by tomorrow must be counted.

Haven't all the states certified their electors by now? Or is there one or two that haven't certified?

If they are certified, it should be open and shut, shouldn't it?

eric76 said:

---

Tomorrow, Tuesday, January 8, 2020, is Safe Harbor Day.

As I understand it, the votes of electors certified by tomorrow must be counted.

Haven't all the states certified their electors by now? Or is there one or two that haven't certified?

If they are certified, it should be open and shut, shouldn't it?

---

You mean December 8th, correct? Otherwise you're posting from the future....Sorcerer!

BluHorseShu said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Tomorrow, Tuesday, January 8, 2020, is Safe Harbor Day.

As I understand it, the votes of electors certified by tomorrow must be counted.

Haven't all the states certified their electors by now? Or is there one or two that haven't certified?

If they are certified, it should be open and shut, shouldn't it?

---

You mean December 8th, correct? Otherwise you're posting from the future....Sorcerer!

---

Right.

I screwed up.