|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 216 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 125 of 216:
| 
Nov 11 06:47 UTC 2000 |
Re #115: screaming? I am ROTFLOL! I agree with Jan - it is hilarious
as well as exciting.
The XX-th doesn't seem to change the XII - but I haven't worked out
what is done between 20 January and 4 March if the House has not made
a decision.
There was a comment made about early travel problems. That was not likely
to be a problem for electors to vote, since they did that in their own
states, but it might have been a problem for the certificates to be
forwarded to Washington. But people got around pretty well in those days -
Lewis and Clark certainly demonstrated that.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 126 of 216:
|
Nov 11 06:49 UTC 2000 |
Yes, Hillary really disappointed me on that. How could we have so much
fun now and then without the electoral college? Who cares if it causes
now gnashing of teeth - the process is all laid out in the Constitution,
which means they expected it to happen. I do not see a single good reason
for abolishing the college.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 127 of 216:
|
Nov 11 07:27 UTC 2000 |
I can do this one of two ways: cut and paste from
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/amend.html
or type in from my copy of House Document No. 93-415, which I've carried
around since '78. The House Document brackets clauses that are affected
by later amendments.
Amendment 12 states, in pertinent part, "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" (House Document No. 93-415, page 33) [this
clause is bracketed, with a note that it has been superseded by Section 3
of Amendment 20].
Amendment 20 states, in Section 1, "The terms of the President and Vice
President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, . . . and the terms
of their successors shall then begin" (House Document No. 93-415, page 37),
and, in Section 3, "If a President shall not have been chosen before the
time fixed for the beginning of his term, . . . then the Vice President
elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and
the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President
elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall
then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be
selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice
President shall have qualified" (ibid).
So if the election is not settled by Inauguration Day, we can have an
interim President until the election *is* settled. Note that March 4th
was Inauguration Day until the ratification of the 20th Amendment.
Section 1 set the dates that the terms of the President, Vice President,
Senators and Representatives begin; Section 2 set the date that Congress
should assemble; Section 5 stated that sections 1 and 2 would take effect
"on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article"
(ibid). Thus, Section 3 was effective before Section 1, and was foreseen
to be likely to be such, so it had to use "the time fixed for the beginning
of his term" instead of "January 20" or "March 4". As it happened, the
amendment was ratified on January 23, 1933. If I remember correctly,
FDR was elected in '32, so he was inaugurated in March, 1933. His next
inauguration was in January, in keeping with this Amendment.
|
janc
|
|
response 128 of 216:
|
Nov 11 07:27 UTC 2000 |
Mr For, perhaps you should read your own comments more carefully. You claimed
that the fall in the stock market over a few days was proof that the election
needed to be resolved fast. Now you are arguing that the market is wise in
the long term. Possibly true, but irrelevant to your original point. A
couple days does not constitute "long term". Neither does a couple months.
You originally suggested that politicians should be responding to short term
fluctuations of the market. Please focus your superior knowledge of business
and the economy on justifying *that* point, not the obvious fact that a
healthy economy is a key part of the health of the nation.
There are so many other things I disagree with in your response that I'm
going to have to summarize:
- Americans are less inclined to take personal responsibility than other
nations. I doubt if this is true in comparison to other wealthy
democracies. In poorer countries it is certainly true that individuals
often lack the resources to defend themselves. Even if the statement
were true, you realize that the same claim can be worded differently:
"In the rest of the world, corporations and governments are not expected
to take responsiblity for their actions; individuals harmed by them just
sit back and take it." Why you think individual responsibility is so
much more than corporate and governmental responsibility is a mystery
to me.
- The details of the hot McDonald's coffee lawsuit are probably not as
you imagine them to be. I'd say that, if presented with the full
details of the case, most people would agree that McDonald's acted
irresponsibly. It's not the most clear cut case in the world, but it's
not as dumb as it sounds on superficial examination either. This is
true for most of the commonly cited dumb lawsuits.
- There may be mistakes and imprefections in every election, but they don't
decide the winner. That's what puts this case on a different scale.
- Why are recounts in other states a "potentially dangerous effect"? In
some of these states (including Florida) recounts happen automatically
in close races. Making sure you counted right is only dangerous if
Democracy is dangerous.
- Sure, lots of people may bring lawsuits over voting issues. Some cases
will win, some will lose, and some will be thrown out of court (like
many of the examples of things you cite that "could" happen). So what?
What's disgraceful about it? I think it'd be much more disgraceful to
say "boy, that race was so close we don't know who win, but we'd better
not examine the first count because we'd look undignified. It's more
important to be diginified that to follow the will of the people, after
all."
- And again, the "only Americans think [litigation over the outcome of
an election] is normal" line. Excuse me, but do you read any world
news? Lots of elections end in litigation or negotiations among the
competing candidates to decide who won. It's a lot more normal in
many other nations than it is in America.
- So you're suggesting that if there was a fire and one precinct's ballots
were destroyed before being counted, then either we'd just have to leave
those people's votes uncounted, or we'd have to rerun the whole national
election? We couldn't just revote that one precinct because it would
be undignified and wasn't the way your high-school science teacher did
things. I think your high-school science teacher was trying to dissuade
people from questioning the grading of their exams. Do you think it should
be the policy of the US Government to dissuade people from complaining
if their voting was interfered with?
- Nader's political career is partly as a candidate for the Green Party,
and partly as a consumer advocate. The Green party isn't going to
reject him for running as hard as he could for them. His ability to
act as an effective consumer advocate is largely based on his celebrity
status, which has only been enhanced by the publicity he has recieved
(five years ago, most people would have reacted to the name "Ralph Nader"
by saying "Oh, is he still alive?"). I'd say Ralph will be able to
get the media to listen a bit when he talks for quite a while. That's
a political career right there. He reputation is not built on being
non-controversial. I'll go this far with your theory - I think he's
unlikely to win any future presidential campaigns.
|
mdw
|
|
response 129 of 216:
|
Nov 11 07:54 UTC 2000 |
I'm sorry, but I don't have much sympathy for people who want a quick
election result so their stocks don't fall too much on the stock
exchange. If the loss hurts you that badly, *don't* invest. If you're
greedy, maybe somewhere around now will be a good time to buy.
Sure, we have a myth in this country that the President is personally
responsible for the economy, and way too many people vote that way.
But, you know, it's just plain wrong. Congress, taken as a whole,
actually has more economic clout than the president, and there are
considerable portions of the economy that are (surprise!) actually not
dependent on the president or washington DC for their revenue stream.
Remember the last time the republican shut down the US gov't? Sure, it
hurt the restaurant and tourist trade in Washington DC, but most of
America kept right on ticking just as it should. In the long run, yes,
the president does have *some* influence, and it's good to have someone
in that seat. But! The sitting president does not always deserve the
credit for when the economy goes on an upswing, and the sitting
president does not always deserve the blame when things go in the
toilet. Just to take an example, Saddam Hussein can be blamed on a
series of bad decisions made by *many* people in the US gov't over the
past *50* years. Our fascination on blaming the nation's economic woes
on the president seems like a revival of some ancient bizarre ritual of
sacrificing the king to appease the gods and ensure a good harvest.
|
md
|
|
response 130 of 216:
|
Nov 11 14:44 UTC 2000 |
The election nonresult didn't cause a Nasdaq sag. If it had any effect
at all, it's more like giving a slight pinky-push to an already out-on-
his-feet drunk. Personally, I'd like this to be handled very
deliberately and with as many recounts as possible. I very much doubt
if the delay will cost whatfor (and who do you suppose he is?
twinkie? willard? jmsaul?) serious money. Got to have it to lose it
*or* make it, no?
It is so obvious that the south FL Buchanan votes were meant for Gore.
Michael Moore made this point: whom are a group of elderly Jews likely
to vote for, the one with the nice Jewish running mate or the one who
always finds something nice to say about Adolf Hitler? Bush appears to
have lost in the popular vote nationwide and lost the electoral vote
but for a misunderstanding in Florida. If he ends up being declared
the winner and dares to use the word "mandate" he should be impeached
on the spot. (Same goes for Gore, to an only slightly lesser degree.)
|
whatfor
|
|
response 131 of 216:
|
Nov 11 17:39 UTC 2000 |
#128: I didn't say the drop in the market was "proof" -- I gave it as
one of two reasons why the issue needs to be resolved ASAP. Nasdaq
futures were up over 40 on election night when it looked like Bush won.
We have since gone down 400 points, including down 180 points on the
day after election day -- that is serious loss of wealth for many
people in this country. Politicians should not necessarily respond to
short-term fluctuations, except when the potential constitutional
crisis they caused ignited the precipitous fall.
-Individual responsibility and Americans. The view from the rest of the
world -- even from Canada, our similar neighbors to the north -- is
that Americans don't take responsibility for their own actions, expect
*everything* to be absolutely fool-proof, and are overly litigious. I
suspect you have never lived for an extended amount of time in another
country, Western or otherwise, and that is why you do not realize that
this perception is generally true.
-They are doing more than ordinary recounts. Gore wants recounts by
magnifying glass, hand recounts so ballots that don't have a proper
hole punched can be counted, etc. Maybe Gore also will bring in
psychics to look at blank ballots to determine if the voter really
meant to vote for Gore?
-How were the votes in Florida "interfered with"? You're setting up a
straw man that is simply untrue. The ballots were not "interfered
with". The ballots were not "perfect", but I am sure there are many
things in tens or hundreds of precincts all over the country that are
not perfect. Go down the path of playing after-the-game referee with
one precinct and all those other imperfect precincts will be in play
again. How far do you go?
-If Bush wins and if Nader runs again in 2004, he will get even fewer
votes than he got this year. Democrats who voted for Nader will see the
damage they have *directly* helped cause and will blame Nader for it,
and rightfully so. His political career is over -- a consumer advocate
is not a political career. The biggest fools are the ones who think
they can take corporate money out of politics by voting for Nader -- I
have some swamp land in Florida for these people. The only way to take
corporate money out of politics is through campaign finance reform, and
that is through either McCain or even Gore. Nader can never win and
Bush has no intentions of serious campaign finance reform.
Congratulations to Nader voters!
Here's something by a lifelong flaming liberal. I don't agree with
everything he says, but he always make some sense. Democrats who are
not closely associated with Gore's campaign are starting to come to
their senses and realize that the game is over and the right thing to
do is not to bring in their army of trial lawyers.
http://slate.msn.com/Readme/00-11-10/Readme.asp
#129: The President has as much influence on the economy as any other
single person, Greenspan included. If a baseball team loses 100 games
in a season, the manager may not be 100% responsible, but he's going to
be held responsible. Likewise with the president of the US if the
economy goes to hell. It's a reasonable act.
|
aaron
|
|
response 132 of 216:
|
Nov 11 18:37 UTC 2000 |
I can't help but wonder why "whatfor" works so hard to avoid taking
responsibility for his own positions, while arguing that others should
be more responsible.
Having lived in England and Canada, there is certainly a perception of
the "ugly American," or the "selfish American," but it is not really
accurate to say that the perception is that Americans don't take
responsibility for their actions. In fact, if you examine either culture,
you will find a much greater propensity among the people to call for
govnerment intervention to resolve societal problems.
I don't see any danger of a constitutional crisis. The worst that could
happen is that the Republican-sponsored litigation slows down the lawful
recount process in Florida, to a point where the Electoral College votes
without any Electors from Florida. Which would mean... Bush would lose.
Perhaps the Republicans should get out of the way, and only challenge the
hand recount if there is some significance to the result - I recognize
their valid fear that a full recount may cost them the election, but
they aren't particularly concerned that an inaccurate count could win the
election for them.
The characterization whatfor gives for the hand recount is simply absurd.
The lawful process in Florida allows Gore to request a hand recount, with
that request evaluaged and either accepted or rejected by the County
Supervisor. Three of those supervisors agreed to a hand recount. That's
the legal, proper process. Gore didn't have to litigate to get the recount.
He has simply made requests under Florida law, which were evaluated and
granted in accord with Florida law.
Had the first recount not so dramatically changed the vote totals, this
might already be over. Instead, there were some very significant shifts
in the totals, and on the whole the shift was overwhelmingly in favor of
Gore. Under those circumstances, it is perfectly legitimate to request
a hand recount under Florida law, and it is perfectly understandable why
three such requests have been granted.
As for whatfor's suggestion that the President is like a coach, who should
be blamed for the economy's performance even if he is not responsible...
That guts his earlier suggestion that not having a President-Elect is
somehow causing economic turmoil. Personally, I'm not a big fan of
scapegoating.
|
gull
|
|
response 133 of 216:
|
Nov 11 19:02 UTC 2000 |
Re #95:
> My expectation is that Gore is going to be the next president. The
> fact that he clearly got a plurality of the votes nationwide does not
> mean anything legally, but it does give him a certain moral
> justification to be "quibbling" over results in places like Palm
> Beach.
--> I disagree. I think Bush will ultimately win, as much as I hate to
admit that. Also, the Republicans are already crying foul that Gore is
holding things up so long (one person I know said he was acting like a
"crybaby" and should "just concede." This person also claimed that Bush
would have already conceded in the reverse position, though, so I think he's
dreaming.) I think that if Gore ultimately wins, it will be a PR disaster
for him; I think he'll be seen as having bullied his way into the White
House by litigation, instead of having gotten it legitimately through a
vote. I also wonder what this will mean for future elections; I'd hate to
see every person who lost one file a lawsuit over it.
Re #131:
> Politicians should not necessarily respond to short-term
> fluctuations, except when the potential constitutional crisis they
> caused ignited the precipitous fall.
--> How is this a Constitutional crisis? So far I don't see any situation
happening that isn't adequately covered. Yes, it might trigger some clauses
that have never really been used before, but that's not a crisis, it's just
unusual.
The NASDAQ hasn't fallen any more precipitously than it was likely to
anyway. It's full of dotcom companies that have never turned a profit;
anyone investing in stocks like that probably has money they can afford to
lose. I don't think we should start making legal decisions based on market
hiccups.
> The biggest fools are the ones who think they can take corporate
> money out of politics by voting for Nader -- I have some swamp land
> in Florida for these people. The only way to take corporate money out
> of politics is through campaign finance reform, and that is through
> either McCain or even Gore.
--> Now who's being naive? You think that a candidate who got *elected*
using corporate money is going to turn around and bite the hand that fed
them by enacting campaign finance reform?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 134 of 216:
|
Nov 11 19:35 UTC 2000 |
The only clause that has never been used is the one describing what to do
if the House cannot decide by Inauguration Day. The clause describing
what to do if the Electoral College ties was used in 1800, to elect Thomas
Jefferson and Aaron Burr. It took several rounds of balloting, but they
eventually got the result everyone wanted: Jefferson as President and Burr
as Vice-president. (I'd always thought Burr was supposed to be President
in that election, but Thursday evening I learned that I had always thought
wrong.)
The Jefferson/Burr election did result in the 12th Amendment. The EC had
voted equal numbers for Jefferson and Burr because they voted for them
as a team, instead of individuals. Until then, the winner became President
and the first runner-up became Vice-president. After that, the two offices
were balloted separately.
There is NO constitutional crisis.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 135 of 216:
|
Nov 11 20:12 UTC 2000 |
Right. It is business as usual. Perhaps a bit like the 100 year flood, but
everyone knows it can occur, and be prepared for it. It seems to me that
the Constitution is much better prepared for it than are people for 100
year floods.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 136 of 216:
|
Nov 11 20:24 UTC 2000 |
I read that piece from slate. Mr. Kinsley is wrong. The ballots MUST be
recounted, as they are being. There are simply too many concerns to NOT
recount them. Asking for other recounts just because the Florida
recount may go against them, as the Bush campaign has been reported to
be considering (if not actually done), *is* wrong. Those will (rightly,
in my view) be seen as childish tit-for-tat.
I expect that the Florida recount will be accomplished in plenty of time
for the December 18 election, and that Bush will win the recount.
|
flem
|
|
response 137 of 216:
|
Nov 11 21:24 UTC 2000 |
Whatfor, let's see if I understand your position.
- Americans need to take personal responsibility for their actions.
They are too soft. They are crybabies who whine to the government
when anything goes wrong, and the government should make them
suck it up and get on with life. And...
- We need to hurry up this election, cutting legal corners and ignoring
the rules of democracy -- because people are losing money in the
stock market.
In the face of such wisdom, I can only echo the words of the immortal Jason
Fox: "You mean the stock market goes *down*?"
|
scg
|
|
response 138 of 216:
|
Nov 11 23:15 UTC 2000 |
I've often heard the rumors that Americans don't take responsibility for their
actions and go to court instead. I've heard it from representatives of the
sorts of companies that tend to be on the receiving end of such lawsuits.
I've heard it from Republicans trying to get the votes of executives of such
companies. And I've heard it from foreigners, from cultures where the
government is either expected to step in and protect them without needing a
lawsuit, or from places where consumer protection is a somewhat alien concept.
I've also been in some situations in foreign countries, situations which I'll
admit I still look at as charming cultural experiences, where I've been struck
by the realization that a fear of lawsuits would prevent them from happening
in the US. One was a long bus ride in Hungary, during which the bus got a
flat tire. In the US, we probably would have waited for a replacement bus,
and gone onto our destination, while the bus with the flat tire was dealt with
by professionals. In Hungary, the bus pulled to the side of the road, and
while passengers wandered on and off, the driver got out a tool box, a jack,
and a spare tire, and stood back and watched while a couple of passengers
changed the tire. I think the driver may have checked the bolts at the end,
but I'm not sure. We then all got back on the bus and continued on our way.
I've been told that was a pretty typical Hungarian bus ride experience.
Now, let's take a look at that from the perspective of taking responsibility.
Knowing nothing about the ability of the passengers to jack up a big heavy
bus, remove a wheel from it, and attach another, there are a number of things
that could have happened. The bus could have slipped off the jack and killed
the passengers changing the tire, and probably seriously injured the
passengers remaining inside as well. The passengers could have attached the
wheel wrong, causing it to come off and injure a large number of passengers.
Those are the sorts of potential problems that would, if they happened, cause
huge lawsuits in the US. That's why no US bus company would operate that way.
Now, you could argue that the passengers should have taken responsability.
We could have researched how Hungarian bus companies operated, and not gotten
on the bus in the first place. Once we saw how the flat tire was being
handled, we could have refused to get back on the bus and instead decided to
be stranded in a very rural area. I suppose if any of us had been really
scared of problems caused by this, that's what we might have decided to do.
But in the US, we would say that the bus companies have responsabilities too.
When a bus company agrees to take passengers somewhere, they agree to be
responsable for getting the passengers to their destination unhurt. When
passengers buy a bus ticket, they have an expectation that the bus company
will live up to that responsibility. The resulting lawsuit would not be about
the passengers wanting to avoid responsibility, but about the bus company
needing to take responsibility for what it had done.
Now, to more directly talk about the election:
I see from CNN that Bush, in addition to having declared himself to be the
next President, has now filed a lawsuit to stop the hand recount. Further
questions Bush referred to James Baker, who insisted that vote counting
machines don't make mistakes, while a handcount will be subject to all sorts
of biases as people look at the ballots and try to decide what they mean.
"Machines are neither Republicans nor Democrats and therefore can never be
consciously or even unconsciously biased," he said.
Has Mr. Baker ever used a machine, or is he in the same league as his former
boss, and current boss's father, who was amazed when he saw a supermarket
scanner? Some substantial fraction of the machines I've used have made
mistakes of one sort or another, sometimes causing serious problems with their
operation. Those that work are dependable mainly because they have been
subjected to lots of testing, and if they appear to be screwing up, people
will look at them again to make sure they are still working. Now Bush and
Baker are filing a lawsuit to prevent people from checking to see if the
machines have been working correctly. What are they afraid of? Do they know
something they think the rest of us don't?
|
danr
|
|
response 139 of 216:
|
Nov 11 23:31 UTC 2000 |
Looks to me like the Republicans are trying to steal this election, too. This
afternoon, I saw a bunch of people protesting this election-grab in front of
the post office downtown. I almost joined in myself.
How can I email the Gore campaign to express my support for their efforts in
ensuring that this thing is handled fairly?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 140 of 216:
|
Nov 11 23:32 UTC 2000 |
I understand that Mr. Bush signed a law allowing hand-recounting. But that
was Texas, and this is Florida. Right?
|
mary
|
|
response 141 of 216:
|
Nov 11 23:43 UTC 2000 |
I think this whole thing is a stitch. I watched Bush try to
make a point yesterday and he couldn't seem to construct a
meaningful sentence. It's like the movie "Being There" except
Bush isn't as sincere as the Peter Sellers character. Gore is
smart enough to shut up at least. No matter what, the next
four years should be a hoot.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 142 of 216:
|
Nov 11 23:58 UTC 2000 |
i'd buy a ticket. :)
|
bru
|
|
response 143 of 216:
|
Nov 12 00:06 UTC 2000 |
What they are afraid of is just what they said. People applying their own
bias to the ticket.
what if a ticket has two partial punches, one for Gore and one for Bush, but
the machine registered the vote for Bush. The hand counter, not knowing
that the machine read it as a bush ticket, and being the good dem that she
is, counts it as a Gore ticket.
Now I do not KNOW that the machine could do this, I also do not know that it
couldn't happen.
The machine, though less discerning than the human eye, will not apply any
bias. Also, the machine would not discriminate to only one side, if a Gore
voter made a mistake in one direction, it is also possible that a Bush voter
did as well. The law of averages says it should even out.
They are afraid of the bias of the counter.
Now...Shall we look at teh impropriates in the other 4 states?
Iowa - reports of impropriates, a state that Gore won with only 5000 votes.
Wisconsin - Bribery of the poor to get them to caste votres for Gore.
Proof that cetain polling places let voters in line and vote past
8:00 cutoff.
A poling place with Gore Lieberman posters all over it and easy
access to the ballots
Complaints from several people saying they were given more than
one ballot, and being told to keep them after they reported them
to the election staff. A stae with a difference of 6208 votes.
Oregon - where they have to handcount everything, they are within 575 votes
of a mandatory recount.
New Mexico - Gore had a lead of 11,407, but with a partial recount of 67,000
votes, that lead shrunk to just 162. 252 ballots are missing,
340 have to be hand counted becaus ethe machines are rejecting
them. And that is only a PARTIAL recount. Over 11,000 errors
in just one county.
|
scg
|
|
response 144 of 216:
|
Nov 12 00:11 UTC 2000 |
If that's the case in those states, it's probably reasonable to recount there
as well. Getting the count right is pretty important.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 145 of 216:
|
Nov 12 00:16 UTC 2000 |
The machine would (well, should) reject the partial punches and duplicate
punches and outright. The hand counters (and there are three, not just
one; had you been paying attention to the news coverage, you should have
know that) will also reject the duplicate punches. The partial punches
are the key: the machine can't score them, but humans can. It's part of
why machines aren't completely capable of counting votes. They can do
more faster, but they can't get the ambiguities.
Do the ambiguities break even, or do they favor one over the other? Won't
know, unless we look at the ballots individually, will we?
|
scott
|
|
response 146 of 216:
|
Nov 12 00:23 UTC 2000 |
Many balloting methods that are used haven't had a good test (ie a close race)
in a while.
|
richard
|
|
response 147 of 216:
|
Nov 12 00:41 UTC 2000 |
jan, on Nightline last night they had a panel of five constitutional
scholars, all of whom agreed that only a majority of the electoral college
need be present for a vote. If florida's electors dont show up, but all
the other electors do, then there IS a majority of the total electors
present and a vote can take place. A president absolutely can be elected
without the presence of the florida electors.
not that this will happen though
|
mdw
|
|
response 148 of 216:
|
Nov 12 00:55 UTC 2000 |
Sure, a vote can take place, but do they still have to reach the 270
count?
|
richard
|
|
response 149 of 216:
|
Nov 12 01:44 UTC 2000 |
270 is the majority of the total electoral college, and theremustbe
atleast 270 electors present to have a vote at all. But as with any vote
on mostboards, if the board has met quorom and they are authorized to
vote, the majority vote of those who are present is all that is needed to
pass anything.
If only four of seven grex members show up at a grex board meeting, they
have quorum, and can vote, but a majority of those four votes will suffice
to pass votes. If only four were present, and a majority vote of all
members (not just those present) were required, there would have to be a
unanimous vote to get anythingpassed.
The forefathers knew there could be,back in the days before airplanes and
highways, instances where Electoral college electors could not show up for
the vote. And they did not wish to have the presidency in doubt because
the electoral college was not 100% present.
In 1864, Lincoln was re-elected. The southern states had seceded and
obviously did not send participate in that vote or send electors to
theElectoral College. However, the secession of those states was never
officially recognized (the northern states never held that the southern
states had the right to secede) So Lincoln was elected *without*
technically a full electoral college vote in 1864. He was elected based
on a majority vote of those electors who did show up.
|