On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 23:47:29 -0400 John Hicks wrote:
On Wednesday 30 June 2004 11:20 am, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
...
So there's sure to be an argument that that
same-electors arrangement is illegal. If so, then the wording of the Consititution should be checked out. Maybe it says that a candidate can designate
any electors s/he wants to.
By luck, and through sources that I dare not name, I have been given access to a copy of the document in question and am thus able to answer your question:
It turns out that it doesn't say anything about a candidate designating electors at all. Rather . . .
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
So it is up to the legislature of each state to determine a method of appointing its electors.
I would think that one would have to look at the relevant legislation in each state to determine if the "same-electors" approach would work in that state. My gut tells me that it's unlikely it could be pulled off in all 50 states but it just might be possible in one or two states.
And that alone would make for a very interesting election night.
Doesn't get too exciting on election night. We do fusion in NY, so by election night we know that one slate of electors nominated more than once gets the votes added just as for individual candidates.
Without fusion there presumably would be no adding, so that two slates dedicated to the same candidate would work against that candidate by splitting the vote.
The nominating can get more exciting - in 2000 NY's Independence, not having a better choice, thought of sharing Nader with the Greens - idea died when Greens declared sharing to be intolerable.
BTW - there could have been two slates with different members, each committed to Nader - STUPID because they would split the Nader vote.
Someplace in this thread there was talk about two slates that shared some, but not all, members. This could create all kinds of headaches and I suspect, would be treated in NY as separate slates.
BTW - do not know of any NY law restricting how an elector acts:
Generally expected that they are nominated to vote for a particular candidate.
In 1996 I got nominated, but made ZERO promise as to how I would act if elected.
In 2000 I helped prepare a promise that all potential Independence electors signed before getting nominated.
John Hicks
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026 Do to no one what you would not want done to you. If you want peace, work for justice.
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
