Last year the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws agreed to ask state legislators to pass a model law, concerning presidential electors who don’t vote for their own party’s presidential and vice-presidential nominees. The model bill has been introduced in at least three states, including Montana. On February 2, the Montana Senate State Administration Committee passed the bill (SB 75) unanimously.
The model bill provides that political parties, and independent presidential candidates, must nominate twice as many candidates for presidential elector as there are seats to be filled. For each available seat, there is a presidential elector candidate, and an alternate presidential elector candidate. In December, when the electoral college votes, any presidential elector who votes for a presidential or vice-presidential candidate not nominated by his or her party is deemed to have resigned, and is automatically replaced by his or her alternate.
The other states in which the bill has been introduced are Indiana (SB 75) and Nebraska (LB 367). Those two bills haven’t moved yet.
I think this a bad bill. If political party electors decide to vote for another candidate, that should the fault of the political party that nominated those electors. Montana has 3 electors. The Bill is SB 194 and was sponsored by a Republican. Maybe we should just have the electors on the ballot and vote for them. It seems as though there may be some fear out there, otherwise why not just use the popular vote and skip the elector process. What do other people think?
One of the strengths of the Electoral College system is that electors can choose to be “unfaithful.”
This uniform law is a bad idea that should not be adopted.
Now here is a piece of legislation looking for a problem to solve! How many “faithless” electors have there been in the entire history of the Electoral College? Seven? Eight? It isn’t many so what’s the problem?
There have been approximately 100 faithless electors for vice-presidential voting. Faithless electors in 1836 who refused to vote for the Democratic candidate for Vice-Presidential candidate, Richard Johnson (because rumor had it that he was living “in sin” with a black woman) caused no one to get a majority in the electoral college for vice-president. So that was the only time when the U.S. Senate chose the vice-president. There have also been eleven faithless presidential electors in the presidential voting, although the number varies according to the definition of “faithless”. When a state party chooses a presidential candidate who is different than the candidate chosen by the national party convention, and the elector votes according to the state party’s choice, is that an example of a faithless elector? If it is, then the number of faithless electors is more like 50. For example, Alabama Democratic electors voted for George Wallace in 1968; were they faithless because they didn’t vote for Hubert Humphrey?
Richard- I was unaware of the VP “faithless” elector situation. As for the presidential vote I still do not see 11 defectors as a significant problem when contrasted with all the “faithful” Electoral College votes cast. This still appears to be needless legislation in my view.
Richard:
First off this seems to me to be somewhat questionable Constitutionally. Saying somebody CANNOT vote their conscious sure seems very Communistic to me. [You can do whatever you want just as long as the Leader says you can do that.] Although it’s unlikely to happen, but does this legislation provide a mechanism for who the Electors are to vote for should the winner in that District dies before the Electoral College votes? Also,
I’m totally against this new form of bossism. So while I’m not one to go out encouraging “faithless” Electors they still should be permitted to vote their conscious.
Does this “Model” legislation require that the Electors reside in the District that they would be representing in the Electoral College? As you mentioned yesterday, the Costa initiative providing for implementing separate voting for each Electoral College District in California will require each Presidential candidate to submit a list of Electors residing in the District that they will be voting for. The smaller parties are likely to have some difficulty complying with that dictate. So looking for 2 people in every District would be even more onerous. It’s quite likely that EVERY small party
and Independent candidate will have a similar problem in those states which have many Districts. Especially if the party is NOT ballot-qualified in the state. Then it will be getting on the ballot through petitioning.
Additionally, would a party or Independent candidate be barred from appearing on a States ballot if it ended up with an incomplete list of Electors? Could we end up with the ridiculous situation of a candidate’s vote in some Congressional Districts NOT being counted due to an Elector vacancy. That would sure stir up a hornet’s nest. Although the practice is less common now, some states still list the Electors on their ballots so I’m assuming (rightly or wrongly) that both the Primary and Alternate Elector would be listed for all to see.
The E.C. is a TOTAL political timebomb.
It went off in 1860 – with about 620,000 DEAD Americans on both sides — with NOT enough DEAD to cause the new Elephants in gerrymander control to get rid of it.
NONPARTISAN App.V. for all executive/judicial offices.
For any naive folks on this list —
the EVIL top party hacks want ROBOTS in the U.S.A. —
ROBOT voters in ROBOT gerrymander districts, ROBOT Electoral College folks in the gerrymander States and D.C., ROBOT bureaucrats, ROBOT courts — enforcing the ROBOT party hack control freak laws. Get the idea ???
VERY little different from the EVIL party hacks in lots of foreign rotted regimes.
Richard Winger
In your post # 4 you stated that “Faithless electors in 1836 who refused to vote for the Democratic Candidate for Vice-Presidential Candidate Richard Johnson (because
rumor had it he was living “in sin” with a black woman)…”
First, that was not the rumor nor the fact. Julia Chinn
was Richard Johnson’s slave and his lover, but she died in 1833 so that could have not been the reason, since she was not black (negro) either. Julia Chinn was an octaroon ( 1/8 negro on her mothers side)and therefore
was Johnson’s slave. Johnson and Chinn had two daughters named Imogene (born October 13, 1804) and Adeline (born February 17, 1812). They however were
mustifee (1/16 negro) and therefore could not be slaves
under the slave laws of Kentucky. Both Imogene and
Adeline were slave owners in their own right. The both
married white men, something their mother could not do
because she was an octaroon living in Kentucky. The issue was that Richard Johnson acknowledge his daughters, and some people disliked that. In fact one
of Imogene’s children was an officer in the Confederate
Army during the War Between the States. I have been thinking for years to write a journal article on Captain
Pence, since he was mustefino (1/32 negro)and the grandson of a slave and a slave owner.
Why are you stating that the electors that voted for George Walace were faithless. They were all honorable. All of them used the title Hon. before their names. William Shearer made reference to
them as Honorable.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
# 9 Any magic DNA test for black, white, yellow, red or brown genes — with fractions 1/256, 1/512, 1/1024, etc. ???
Perhaps even blue, green, purple genes — from outer space ???
Charles Deemer
The first faithless elector I remember was Dr. Lloyd W.
Bailey, who was William Shearer’s friend. Bill Shearer
asseverated that Dr. Bailey was “en ame et conscience”
by casting his votes for George C. Wallace for President and Curtis LeMay for Vice President at the
North Carolina Electorial College meeting in December,
1968.
He was also a active member of the John Birch Society.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Demo Rep
Your post # 10 reminded me of the case of PLESSY v. FERGUSON of 1896, which I wrote a paper on when I was
in a class in Railroad Transportation Law. While I was studing to be admitted before the Interstate Commerce
Commission.
Homer Adolph Plessy was an Octaroon (1/8 Negro), both of his parents were Octaroon also, viz., called persons
of color in those days. This case set the standard for
race law in the United States for nearly 60 years.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
#12 Yeah — until some common sense about the EVIL *Black Codes* in 1865-1866 in the ex-slave States got into the skulls of SCOTUS in Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954 — OVER-Ruling Plessy.
The Black Codes in effect kept the ex-slaves in a de facto state of slavery.
See the Dec. 1865-June 1866 debates in the Congressional Globe in the 39th Congress – that enacted the 1866 Civil Rights Act and proposed the 14th Amdt (in part because of super-doubts about the legality of the 1866 CRA).
— i.e. in 1866-1868 CIVIL rights were NOT political rights (voting, holding public offices).
Due to ARMIES of super-lazy lawyers and const. law profs SCOTUS has yet to do a proper 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 opinion — even with the BBE opinion.
How many generations of *white* folks in the far southern States are getting darker with each generation — as genetic protection from the strong southern Sun ???
See the *white* folks in Spain, southern Italy, Greece, etc.
Richard Winger & others
If one wants to read more about negro upon negro slave
history in the United States, my suggestion is to read
BLACK MASTERS: A Free Family Of Color In The Old South
by Michael P. Johnson & James L. Roark (W W Norton & Company).
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg,
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party