Would the Electoral College elect a "Third Party"?

I have been wondering what if a "Third Party" won the 2012 Election.

No Constitutional provision or Federal law requires electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their State.

www.archives.gov...

Note: Most of the time.

Most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in that particular state. Some states have laws that require electors to vote for the candidate that won the popular vote, while other electors are bound by pledges to a specific political party. However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people's decision, and there is no federal law or Constitutional provision against it.

people.howstuffworks.com...

Virtually, No fine or punishment for going against Voters.

In 21 states, electors are not obligated by law to vote for the candidate for whom they were selected. In the 29 states where electors are obligated by law or pledge, they can often still vote against their party without being replaced. Some states issue only minimal fines as punishment. Other states instigate criminal charges varying from a simple misdemeanor to a 4th degree felony.

archive.fairvote.org...

Remember Ross Perot did not win any States. I just have a feeling they would never let that

"Third Party" win in our Constitutional Republic. I could be wrong.

I would love to hear your take.

reply to post by whyamIhere


WhyamIhere, I am fairly confident that if a third party candidate wins in 2012, electors will vote accordingly. It is suicide for any person in the position of the elector, to willingly cast a vote against what would be an historical election change. The third parties do have a chance, it just a matter of the american people waking up to the reality that it's not just the red and blue pill they have to pick from.

They will vote for whoever their corporate lobbyists want them to vote for, just like always

I made a thread a long while back about the electoral college.

It's simply not possible for a third party to emerge anytime soon so long as the winner-take-all system is in place in 48 states. A third party cannot win in 2012, nor 2016 or even 2020. A lot needs to happen before the electoral collgege could elect a third party.

You also have to remember there are a minimum number of electoral votes a candidate must obtain(270), if you were to split the votes three ways no candidate would win the presidency...the electoral college prevents multiple parties from taking too many votes, the systems the states have put into place further press third parties back. A candidate needs to win by an overwhelming majority in order to obtain the presidency.

You can read more here.

reply to post by links234



Before I posted I read your thread.

I think if it were a very close election.

It would just take one "Key" Elector to change the outcome.

One person could end up deciding who is President.

This seems to me very possible.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by whyamIhere

 

WhyamIhere, I am fairly confident that if a third party candidate wins in 2012, electors will vote accordingly. It is suicide for any person in the position of the elector, to willingly cast a vote against what would be an historical election change. The third parties do have a chance, it just a matter of the american people waking up to the reality that it's not just the red and blue pill they have to pick from.

Great Reply, I am in total agreement....

I seriously think people have given up.

A third party could win a landslide Victory.

However, If the Election was very close.

It could get very ugly fast.

The problem is for a 3rd party candidate to win voters would have to split from both Republican and Democratic tickets. In the past we've seen many conservative 3rd party candidates get some decent votes with the end result being a liberal win. I feel many conservatives will vote who they feel is the best candidate regardless of party lines. Unfortunately the liberal side only votes for the Democratic candidate regardless so a 3rd party win doesn't seem likely. The most likely outcome is conservatives split the vote among Republican and 3rd party while the Democrat wins with liberal solidarity. This was one of the largest factors in Clinton winning both his elections.

In 2012, The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

Under the National Popular Vote bill, all the electoral votes from all the states that have enacted the bill would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA ,RI, VT, and WA . The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, VT, and WA. These 8 jurisdictions possess 77 electoral votes — 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

www.NationalPopularVote.com...

There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

Faithless electors are not a practical problem, and most states have complete authority to remedy any problem there could be, by means of state law. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

reply to post by mvymvy



The State laws are very weak if any at all.

I could not find it but I remember an 18 year old Electoral voter.

Who are these nameless, faceless insiders ?

The truth is after many changes, "The College" is still full of flaws.

And really, Don't you think the guy with the most votes should win ?

When I learned this in 6th grade, That "We the People", do not really matter.

I have been bitter ever since. My vote is worthless in the big picture.

I heard Vladimir Putin is running for US President...says he doesn't have a US birth certificate either.


America is a REPUBLIC. The people don't pick the President, never have...never will.

If the Electoral College wants to pick Vladimir Putin...he's in. (he'd probably do a better job)

He spends his countries money on his own people. Not the rest of the world. But the Electoral College is made up of our Nations Royal Families....they pick WHO will make them the most $$$$$.

Mark my words it will never ever be close enough to even come into question in our lifetimes. The current ruling parties have done wonders to divide the nation and polarize people so that they only see things in red or blue. There have been definite moves by the big two to prevent any kind of a toe-hold to be established by third party candidates, so why suddenly would 2012 be the year of the third party when they regularly fail to even come in third on numbers in most elections?

reply to post by Helig



Your probably right.

However, considering there is fifty-one different laws governing "Electors".

It just seems antiquated and inconsistent.

reply to post by Pervius


National Popular Vote has nothing to do with whether the country has a "republican" form of government or is a "democracy."

A "republican" form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a republican form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as has been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).

reply to post by mvymvy


I'm sorry, I absolutely abhor the popular vote conception. It will destroy any chance of a third party emerging. Nearly 100 million people don't vote in presidential elections as it is, when people feel in the minority they have the idea that their vote doesn't matter and don't even bother showing up. A popular vote will make only the most populous states matter (the coasts) while completely ignoring the rest of the nation (the mid-west).

It would be beneficial in cases such as 2000, but in the overall, the popular vote loss has only occurred 4 times. I think it would discourage more voters than encourage.

I'd like to add that a lot of states have laws that specifically require their electors to vote for whatever the majority vote says. Electors do not always vote for one party or the other 'just because.'

Originally posted by mvymvy
In 2012, The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

Under the National Popular Vote bill, all the electoral votes from all the states that have enacted the bill would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA ,RI, VT, and WA . The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, VT, and WA. These 8 jurisdictions possess 77 electoral votes — 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

www.NationalPopularVote.com...

If that ever happens I pray to God Pennsylvania leaves the Union. Enabling California, Florida, Texas and New York to lord over the other States will cause a civil war. That is why we have the Electoral College. The only changes that need to be made is to simply make the Electors themselves redundant. Get rid of them and have an Electoral Popular Vote.