It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Twenty-four states have laws to punish faithless electors. While no faithless elector has ever been punished, the constitutionality of state pledge laws was brought before the Supreme Court in 1952 (Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214). The court ruled in favor of the state's right to require electors to pledge to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged, as well as to remove electors who refuse to pledge. Once the elector has voted, his or her vote can be changed only in states such as Michigan and Minnesota, where votes other than those pledged are rendered invalid. In all twenty-four states, a faithless elector may only be punished after he or she votes. The Supreme Court has ruled that, as electors are chosen via state elections, they act as a function of the state, not the federal government. Therefore states have the right to govern electors. The constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote—rather than merely refusing to pledge—has never been decided by the Supreme Court.
Actually it does matter... the uncounted votes could be a huge issue What happens if the sates recount and the electors go to third parties?
Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by FreebirdGirl
Pssst. The election is over. It was last week.
I appreciate the thrust of your post.
However, to be exact, the election isn't over until all the votes are counted and the results are legally certified.
In Arizona, the counties have until November 16 to finish the count and the certification conference is scheduled to take place on December 3. This is according to Arizona State law. Other states will probably have slightly different deadlines according to their own laws.
So do you think there is a remote possibility that Romney will be named president? If not than the election is over. We need to concentrate our energy elsewhere.
Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Xcathdra
Since then we have a few states who use a proportional electoral college system, splitting their electoral amounts between the candidates based on the percentage of population they carried in that state.
I don't think that is true. Do you have evidence?
The proposal does come up occasionally. Republicans in Ohio raised it just the other day. But I am quite sure that no one has implemented it yet.
Originally posted by ripcontrol
reply to post by rnaa
ok so I understand... all votes are being counted right.. Care to put money on it?
The military did not deliver a large portion of the overseas votes
in texas their was a sign on the booths that said if the write in candidates name wasnt on the list of registered it would not be counted...
you know why?
You have to register and pay 10,000 dollars to register...
candidate doesnt pay votes do not count
Means my vote was tossed
Means my mothers vote was tossed
means my Girlfriends vote was tossed
means my friends vote was tossed
I looked into a few things where I had a friend or two...
written ballots 'disappeared' again... (in a more liberal district however)
I have no photos or evidence so I guess the next response is it did not happen
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Maine and Nebraska both split their electoral votes based on the percentage of population each candidate for President garners in those 2 states.
If Candidate A gets 60% and Candidate B gets 40%, and the state has a total of 10 electoral votes, then Cand A gets 6 electoral votes and B gets 4.p
Originally posted by GrimReaper86
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
Electoral votes are the reason he has been declared the winner, the popular vote really means # at least to tptb. That being, Florida won't change the outcome. Sorry dude.