A Constitutional Solution

Posted by Wanderer 7 years, 10 months ago to Politics
90 comments | Share | Flag

A Constitutional Solution
Don’t like Wallbuilder Donny or Lying Hillary? There’s a way out. It’s called the Electoral College.
The Democrat Machine got its way and, Democrats are left standing at the altar, staring at a bride most of them don’t want, in spite of her gender.
The brick (and punch) throwers got their way and, Republicans are left standing at the altar, staring at a groom most of them don’t want, in spite of his vast knowledge and quiet eloquence.
If you’re less than thrilled about the choice you’re facing, there may still be time to avoid your vows. It depends on a seriously flawed third party which has fielded an accomplished and acceptable candidate who, even if he doesn’t receive many votes could, if he plays his cards right, stop both Donny and Hillary from winning.
What? They can both lose?
Yes, they can both lose. Our Constitution requires a Presidential candidate receive a majority of Electoral College votes; not a plurality, a majority. The same straightforward, established Republican Party rule that Trumpites refused to acknowledge or understand in the primary process. To get the Party nomination a candidate had to receive more than half the available votes. To become President, a candidate has to receive more than half the 539 available Electoral College votes.
If neither Donny, nor Hillary receive 270 Electoral College votes, they both lose.
Feeling flushed? Pulse quickening? Wondering if this can really happen?
It’s happened twice, once in 1800, when Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr got exactly the same number of Electoral College votes, allowing the House of Representatives to select Jefferson as the next President.
It happened again in 1824 when, because there were four candidates running for President, none received a majority of the Electoral College votes. The Twelfth Amendment limits the House’s choices to the three candidates who received the most popular votes, Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams and William Crawford. The Congress picked Adams, even though he’d received far fewer popular and Electoral College votes than had Jackson.
So, you see, it could happen, the House of Representatives, your Congressmen could pick someone besides Donny and Hillary, someone like Gary Johnson, Libertarian Party candidate and former governor of New Mexico...
…as long as neither Donny nor Hillary get 270 Electoral College votes. But, it will only happen if we make it happen. Here’s a possible scenario:
Sanders and Cruz between them took more than 60% of total primary votes cast in the following states: Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Main, Utah and Wyoming. That’s a lot of votes for someone besides the two front runners and, if they could be convinced to do it again, vote for someone besides the two front runners, like Gary Johnson, that would be 26 Electoral College votes neither Wallbuilder Donny nor Lying Hillary would get. If they roughly split the remaining Electoral College votes, they both come up short of 270.

The House could then choose “Neither Of The Above”, ending our electoral nightmare and, giving us a caretaker President, Libertarian Gary Johnson who remains popular in his home state, New Mexico, where he’s thought to have done a very good job. Instead of the usual wild-eyed, bomb-throwing Libertarian, Johnson takes a much more practical, evolutionary approach and appears to have none of the character flaws belonging to the front runners.
Just a thought, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Utah and Wyoming, you could save us. Just a thought.


All Comments

  • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 10 months ago
    If Clinton or Trump has a major scandal, Johnson could win a majority. He would need to start getting more attention right now and the scandal would have to happen too close to the election for the parties' establishments to respond. This is my dream scenario.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Animal 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I was referring to the Democrat candidate nomination process, not the election.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Is this some kind of fixation, that the Congress can choose whomever it wants to be President? You continue ignoring the Constitution, which says it has to be one of the top 3 vote getters from the election process. Misusing tax dollars, trying to legalize illegal aliens, spending us slowly into the poorhouse, these things all irritate the public but, Violating the 12th Amendment and installing a king would start the uprising everyone's been talking about.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Animal 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Whatever the current resident of the Imperial Mansion may think, it doesn't change that Bill Clinton can't be President again. Whatever happens, it won't be Bill Clinton, and it sure as hell won't be Al Sharpton. If Her Imperial Majesty is indicted and shamed (ha!) into dropping out, look for them to pick someone like John Kerry or some other old proggie retread.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I fear you're right because, a Libertarian President would work against their selfish interests. There are currently 247 Republicans and 187 Democrats in the House (and 1 vacancy) 42 of the Republicans are Freedom Caucus members. They consistently vote the conservative side of fiscal and social issues, usually against the House Republicans and always against the House Democrat. The House really breaks down into 205 Republicans, 187 Democrats and 42 Freedom Caucus.

    That makes the Freedom Caucus kingmakers. If they could talk the Democrats into voting for Johnson because of his liberal social policies, and they voted for him because of his attention to fiscal conservatism and the Constitution, then they could outvote the Republicans.

    I think it depends on Trump's end game. If he pivots after a hung election and toes the liberal Democrat line then, I'd say he wins on a bipartisan vote. If he zigs right, to win over the Republicans I'd say Johnson has a chance.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 7 years, 10 months ago
    I don't think any of those people in the House
    would vote for a Libertarian, regardless of how
    they regard the other two candidates. --(Also, I
    have reservations. I understand that Ayn Rand
    repudiated the Libertarian party. Although, if faced with this alternative, it's hard to tell
    what she would say).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimjamesjames 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, but presidential directives overrule the Constitution.......Hell, with this Congress, anything overrules the Constitution.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Starz;

    Every domestic decision he's made has weakened us as a nation and as a people.

    Every international decision he's made has weakened us as a nation and the western world as a cultural unit.

    He's supported the overthrow of every secular Middle East leader by violent Shias. He refused to support either of the popular uprisings in Iran against its Shia theocracy.

    He purged all knowledgeable Muslim experts from the FBI and CIA and Defense Department. He refuses to acknowledge Islam as the source of terror, even though American Muslims are 35 times more likely to commit murder than are the rest of us. He maintains Islam is the religion of peace, no matter what Islam says.

    Ocam's Razor says he's a Shia Muslim engaged in strategic war against we infidels and hiding it behind Islam's taqiiya veil.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thanks for the link. You're right, they appear enthusiastic. How can a libertarian screw up addressing a crowd like that?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by starznbarz 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Martial law... those are the words Obama has longed to put into an EO, that is what the Mrs. probably whispers in his ear on those romantic nights in Hawaii. It is to our high credit we have not taken the multiple baits he has put out over the years, although, as his term ends, we may yet see just how much of an American enemy he truly is.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    One place is Mexico. but at least 50 miles south of the border or the Rio Grande and that may not apply to all portions. FNA is Free North America. Think of expat but still involved and registered . Though the reasons for that are fast fading.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by rbunce 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Generally Gov Johnson must win at least one electoral vote to be in play AND Sec Clinton and Mr. Trump (or whoever the D and R nominees end up being) must not get 270 EC votes. The more EC votes Gov Johnson gets the more likely it will be that nobody gets to 270. IF Clinton v Trump is a very tight race then perhaps just a vote or two EC votes for Gov Johnson could make that happen... and there is Maine and Nebraska that are not winner take all for EC electors. In each of those two States two electors are elected Statewide but the remaining electors are elected by US House District. So Gov Johnson winning just a couple districts in NE and ME could get him in the US House election for President.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by rbunce 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    12th Amendment Text

    "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

    The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

    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.

    The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by rbunce 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The US Senate votes for the VP from the top two EC voter receivers... Popular vote is meaningless in the US Presidential election.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by rbunce 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's not the delegates, that is for the convention. It is no longer the Electors once the EC votes and nobody gets 270. It is the new US House voting, one vote per State... so only 26 votes needed.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by rbunce 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You need to read the 12th again. They are obviously talking about EC votes in that entire paragraph. Popular vote is meaningless in Presidential elections.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The delegates elect whomever they want from the top 3 popular vote getters. Whomever gets at least 51 votes wins. I make no and have made no representations as to whom would vote for whom. I don't give a frig for party politics and choose not to decide which party is more corrupt. I just posed the possibility that someone besides Hillary and Donny could become the next President. It set off all you Galt loons on a seemingly never ending discussion about which party would vote for who.

    It's all immaterial unless Johnson gets his act together and wins some states which, looks improbable because instead he's trying to win the election outright, which won't happen.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The Senate has nothing to do with this. It's only the House of Representatives that votes and, it must select from the top 3 popular vote getters.

    Read up on the election of 1824.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by rbunce 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The new US House votes by State, one vote per State decided by the States delegation (unless the State Constitutions have something to say about it) so it is not which party is the majority in the new US House it is which party is the majority of the delegation in the majority of the States. Lots of political reasons for Republicans in the US House to vote for Johnson. If things go well for 4 years he is a Republican really. If things go badly he is a Libertarian. If things go badly with Trump... it's on them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Wrong, 12th Amendment, the top 3 popular vote getters, not Electoral College vote getters. Check out the election of 1824.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by rbunce 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The new US House only chooses between top 3 EC vote receivers for President with one vote per State presumably determined by the States delegation although State Constitution may have something to say about it. US Senate between top 2, most likely the R and the D, for VP with all 100 Senators voting. Likely the new House will still have Rs in the majority of the delegates in the majority of States. Do not dismiss Gov Weld possibility of bringing in a State or two in the NE even though he would not be a factor in the US Senate vote for VP.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo