I am only going to address the faithless electors portion because I believe there's zero chance of a tied EC(I could write a very boring dissertation about this but won't); imo if Harris wins a fair election, there is zero chance that enough faithless electors will change the outcome
I am only going to address the faithless electors portion because I believe there's zero chance of a tied EC(I could write a very boring dissertation about this but won't); imo if Harris wins a fair election, there is zero chance that enough faithless electors will change the outcome
I was not thinking of a tied Electoral College vote, but rather one or more states won by Harris failing to certify their election. Thus creating a situation where neither candidate reaches 270.
Why do you believe there is ZERO chance of two, three or four faithless electors changing the outcome?
Note: In the course of 59 elections, 165 electors have not cast their votes for president or vice president as prescribed by the state they represented. Although 71 were instances where the candidate died, 93 were changed by the elector's personal preference. That’s not an insignificant number!
Its a pretty insignificant number given we are talking tens of thousands of electors (I will leave it up to the reader to calculate exactly how many electors have had their votes counted since 1789.
We did have 10 faithless electors have their votes counted in 2016, so its not impossible, but like I said - in many states they just void the votes and in any others taking a bribe would be a federal and importantly a state crime. And those were all protest voters who knew that they had no impact on the outcome.
So basically you would have Democratic party loyalists who would be willing to take money in order to put Trump in the White House with a huge risk of being imprisoned for doing so. That seems really really unlikely.
If even one person did that, it would also almost surely mean the end of the electoral college.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a way around that and I think a verified case of an elector being bribed would be enough that every remaining Dem trifecta state would pass it.
But even without that I think that the outrage over a candidate trying to bribe an elector would lead to a real national push for a constitutional amendment.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has no red states' support. You're aware that a whole bunch of Republican legislatures would have to vote for a constitutional amendment, unless we want to risk a Constitutional Convention, right?
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact needs no red state support. Thats the genius of it.
Yes, I realize a bunch of red states would have to vote for it. Thats how serious I think "bribing an elector to throw the election to the loser" would be treated.
The people who made the NPVIC made a serious error in naming it. Logically I can see no way that anyone could credibly argue that it violates the constitution, because the actual implementation isn't an agreement between states but instead an a trigger condition for a way of a state awarding its electoral votes.
However, they decided to give it the inaccurate name "Interstate Compact" — and the constitution specifically says those are only valid if approved by congress.
Probably too far in the weeds but if the compact could get to around 250 EVs is it safe from judicial attack until it hits 270? If so keep it just short until the court is less stacked.
Agree to disagree; imo those outcomes are way beyond likely as to the point of statistically impossible(I'm a poker player and I would bet my mortgage that if Harris wins Pennsylvania, she wins the election)
From a pure math standpoint: If Harris wins PA, Trump would need to win four of the five remaining swing states not named Nevada or GA+NC+MI+NV. The only three-state combination involving PA & those five remaining swing states not named Nevada that DOESN'T get Harris to 270 is PA+AZ+WI (266 EVs). All four-state combinations that include PA are winners for Harris.
It looks like Nebraska's special legislative session ended a couple of days ago without going to winner takes all (or apparently passing the property tax relief that was the impetus for the session in the first place). So that really significantly reduces the odds of a non-cheating electoral college tie.
Incidentally, if I'm ever elected to Congress, my first proposed legislation would be to bump up the number of House seats by one so we have an odd number of electors and thus cant have an electoral college tie (at least without faithless electors or cheating).
Well, I would like to see you first propose statehood for DC, as well as for Puerto Rico should the people there want it. Four more senators, certainly a few more House representatives – and definitely more electors. (Making an odd-numbered total, if you wish.)
I am only going to address the faithless electors portion because I believe there's zero chance of a tied EC(I could write a very boring dissertation about this but won't); imo if Harris wins a fair election, there is zero chance that enough faithless electors will change the outcome
I was not thinking of a tied Electoral College vote, but rather one or more states won by Harris failing to certify their election. Thus creating a situation where neither candidate reaches 270.
Why do you believe there is ZERO chance of two, three or four faithless electors changing the outcome?
Note: In the course of 59 elections, 165 electors have not cast their votes for president or vice president as prescribed by the state they represented. Although 71 were instances where the candidate died, 93 were changed by the elector's personal preference. That’s not an insignificant number!
Its a pretty insignificant number given we are talking tens of thousands of electors (I will leave it up to the reader to calculate exactly how many electors have had their votes counted since 1789.
We did have 10 faithless electors have their votes counted in 2016, so its not impossible, but like I said - in many states they just void the votes and in any others taking a bribe would be a federal and importantly a state crime. And those were all protest voters who knew that they had no impact on the outcome.
So basically you would have Democratic party loyalists who would be willing to take money in order to put Trump in the White House with a huge risk of being imprisoned for doing so. That seems really really unlikely.
If even one person did that, it would also almost surely mean the end of the electoral college.
The end of the electoral college? Do you realize that would require a constitutional amendment?
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a way around that and I think a verified case of an elector being bribed would be enough that every remaining Dem trifecta state would pass it.
But even without that I think that the outrage over a candidate trying to bribe an elector would lead to a real national push for a constitutional amendment.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has no red states' support. You're aware that a whole bunch of Republican legislatures would have to vote for a constitutional amendment, unless we want to risk a Constitutional Convention, right?
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact needs no red state support. Thats the genius of it.
Yes, I realize a bunch of red states would have to vote for it. Thats how serious I think "bribing an elector to throw the election to the loser" would be treated.
Sure, by the same party that stole the 2000 election and supported Trump's collaboration with Russia and attempts to steal the 2020 election...
It is a great idea that the Supreme Court would overturn less than 30 seconds after the final state passes it.
You mean the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, not a constitutional amendment?
The people who made the NPVIC made a serious error in naming it. Logically I can see no way that anyone could credibly argue that it violates the constitution, because the actual implementation isn't an agreement between states but instead an a trigger condition for a way of a state awarding its electoral votes.
However, they decided to give it the inaccurate name "Interstate Compact" — and the constitution specifically says those are only valid if approved by congress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_3:_Compact_Clause
This gives an easy out for the republican SCOTUS to void the whole thing if it lets them steal an election.
Wow! I did not know that! That error should be fixed.
Probably too far in the weeds but if the compact could get to around 250 EVs is it safe from judicial attack until it hits 270? If so keep it just short until the court is less stacked.
Basically I agree with everything TomA here posts on the subject
Tied EC is certainly not 0%. You can construct a couple different plausible scenarios.
Trump 2020 + GA, NV, AZ, NE-2
https://www.270towin.com/maps/07NVn
Trump 2020 + PA, MI (I also swapped NC and GA, but that makes no difference)
https://www.270towin.com/maps/JepZz
Probably others. That was just playing around for a minute or two with the map.
I am curious why you think these are exceedingly unlikely?
Agree to disagree; imo those outcomes are way beyond likely as to the point of statistically impossible(I'm a poker player and I would bet my mortgage that if Harris wins Pennsylvania, she wins the election)
From a pure math standpoint: If Harris wins PA, Trump would need to win four of the five remaining swing states not named Nevada or GA+NC+MI+NV. The only three-state combination involving PA & those five remaining swing states not named Nevada that DOESN'T get Harris to 270 is PA+AZ+WI (266 EVs). All four-state combinations that include PA are winners for Harris.
You have expertly made my point; thank you
Yeah.
But ig MI and NV would be harder than other states for Trump. So the scenarios of him winning NV before rust belt, or MI before GA, is less likely.
However, this tie is quite possible:
Trump 2020 + PA + GA, Harris winning all four votes from ME.
The key state being Pennsylvania
It looks like Nebraska's special legislative session ended a couple of days ago without going to winner takes all (or apparently passing the property tax relief that was the impetus for the session in the first place). So that really significantly reduces the odds of a non-cheating electoral college tie.
Incidentally, if I'm ever elected to Congress, my first proposed legislation would be to bump up the number of House seats by one so we have an odd number of electors and thus cant have an electoral college tie (at least without faithless electors or cheating).
Well, I would like to see you first propose statehood for DC, as well as for Puerto Rico should the people there want it. Four more senators, certainly a few more House representatives – and definitely more electors. (Making an odd-numbered total, if you wish.)