Sunday, November 18, 2012

Can 17 States determine who our next President is?

Electors in the Electoral College MUST VOTE for who wins there state?...FALSE!!!
In theory, this is true. In practice, however, electors may vote for whomever they please, and on rare occasions, they do. In a tight election, such behavior might deny either candidate a majority of the electoral vote and throw the election into the House of Representatives.
Which brings me to THIS:
According to Article II of the U.S. Constitution AND the 12th Amendment – if 1/3rd of the States do not cast their votes in the Electoral College — then the matter falls onto the House of Representatives to choose the President.
In other words — if we pressure Congressmen, State Party Officials, and groups such as Tea Party Patriots, Heritage Foundation, etc., to call on RED States to NOT have their Electors cast their vote — then the House of Reps CAN choose the next President!!!!!
read the whole story HERE.

Any Thoughts?


If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook here.
Please follow us on Twitter here.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sounds like a plan to me.

Romney/Ryan 2012

Anonymous said...

I wonder if the Supreme Court would be required to get involved if this was tried?

Anonymous said...

It would be great if we can do this.

Urban areas suck said...

Change the election process some how so that the large urban cities/areas don't determine who our President is.

New Your city should not determine who wins NY. Cleveland should not determine who wins OHIO.

Set it up so that these cities carry no more weight than those who have smaller populations.

Until this happens, expect minorities and liberals to determine national elections.

Dumb Plumber said...

Oh puleeze, getting into the weeds on campaign etiquette for close elections is like ordering the custom or deluxe chrome packages on your next pickup truck. In short, it ain't gonna make a whit's difference on how it runs.

Wake up and smell the coffee folks, the gig is up, the fat lady has sung, the bad guys won and are dragging John Wayne's body through the streets behind a Chevy Volt.

Given the campaign fraud, the election fraud, the outright theft of votes, voters and by election officials, our chances of winning another meaningful election are well....the snowflake in Hell comes to mind.

cimbri said...

Thanks for the reading assignment, my preliminary analysis is that democrats would challenge a lack of elector vote from that state in federal court. It would inevitably go to the US Supreme Court. But I'll read further and check it out.

GAYLE said...

R voting should be really done for sure. It should be that 2/3 of the vote should win. Not just the large city's in our states. I don't approve how Obama won and I think things should change.

GAYLE said...

R voting should be really done for sure. It should be that 2/3 of the vote should win. Not just the large city's in our states. I don't approve how Obama won and I think things should change.

Unknown said...

Yeah...here's a thought. You're a complete moron.

cimbri said...

It appears that the quorum issue only applies after the election has been thrown into the Congress. Obama has a majority of electoral votes, so he doesn't have a problem.

The only way lack of quorum scenario could happen is if a viable 3rd party came along and started winning states. If a group of states did refuse to cast their vote, and/or the House could not reach a decision, then the sitting Vice-President would be sworn in. I think our goose is cooked for now. see text of 12th amendment:

"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. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President"

MrX said...

I'm a Canadian, so can't say much. But I'd be worried about the idiom that what you can do, your opponent can do also. They could pull this off as well next time a Republican wins.

In other countries, the winner of the House choose a leader and that person is the leader of the country. In the US, you have a completely separate branch for the executive. So what you're talking about is actually gearing toward a Monarchical Republic or Constitutional Monarchy like what Canada has. Don't think that would go down well with the public of the US.

Anonymous said...

This article states, "According to Article II of the U.S. Constitution AND the 12th Amendment - if 1/3rd of the States do not cast their votes in the Electoral College -- then the matter falls onto the House of Representatives to choose the President." However, that is not what the 12th Amendment says. What the 12th Amendment says that if a candidate gets the majority of electoral votes (currently 270), the election does not go to the House of Representatives. If, and only if, the election goes to the House of Representatives, does the "2/3rds of the states" requirement kick in. See the text of the 12th Amendment.

The liberals and progressives try to modify, interpret, and twist the words of the constitution to suit the given situation. Conservatives and Republicans have no reason to do so; we should adhere strictly to the actual meaning of the words in the constitution.

One of the quorums is in case the vice presidential election goes to the U.S. Senate - each senator gets one vote, 51 votes are needed for election, and 2/3rds of the Senate must be present for a quorum to exist. And the other quorum is in case the presidential election goes to the U.S. House - each state delegation gets one vote, 26 votes are needed for election, and 2/3rds of the state delegations must be present for a quorum to exist.

However, these two quorums come into effect only if no presidential candidate gets 270 electoral votes. If a candidate gets 270 or more electoral votes, they become the president. The 12th Amendment says: “A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States....” In this quote, "for this purpose" refers only to the case where no presidential candidate receives 270 electoral votes, and therefore the election has gone to the House. If a candidate receives 270 electoral votes, he is elected president, and the election does not go to the House, and "this purpose" never exists.

Anonymous said...

Maybe if we started interpreting things like Democrats, we wouldn't have lost this election.

Maybe we need a fight fire with fire attitude. Fuck the high road.

Anonymous said...

you've got that right. i am not going to be their ObamaCare slave

fab807 said...

Since this past election was decided by the(so-called) "swing" states, in conjunction with the traditionally "blue" states -- which totaled up to 303+ electoral votes, apparently Mr. Obama's message deeply resenated with these "blue" state voters! i.e., "ObamaCare," a $716 billion hit to Medicare, higher taxes for the wealthy, and higher deficits than the eyes can foresee --

My suggestion -- GOP House members should sponsor a bill when they re-convene that they ALONE and ONLY those "blue" states be required to henceforth, live under those policies,laws,regulations, of what in fact those states VOTED FOR!!

In the interest of "bi-partisanship" and "fairness," those "blue" states that voted Obama will NOT be exempt as the "red" states will be!

Since voters in those "red" states did NOT vote for Obama's socialistic programs/massive deficits into the future and class envy/warfare, then as I suggest, in the true spirit of "bi-partisanship," those "red" states should be EXEMPT from those ill-conceived programs or increases.

Why not liberals ask? 'Cause it's only fair! "Red" staters should suffer and NOT participate in all those "goodies" Obama wants for the ENTIRE country!

Those red states that voted for Romney should now be allowed to live under the government they VOTED FOR! Lower taxes, less government intervention/regulation, NO "ObamaCare," and free markets.

Am I talking cession? Heaven's NO! Just let's have the authority to operate the way they voted.

It truly would be interesting to see the results after 4 years in the "red" vs "blue" states -- and how much of a mass exodus would occur from "blue" to "red."

Now -- how much more "bi-partisanship" can you get?????!!

Unfortunately, we'll never know!