The Washington Post has this article about write-ins in presidential elections, with an emphasis on how popular it seems to be this year.
If Gary Johnson or Jill Stein poll approximately 5% of the national vote, the precise national percentage may need to be determined. The question of whether write-in votes cast for presidential candidates who have no slates of presidential elector candidates standing behind them may need to be adjudicated. The denominator (the number of valid votes cast for president in the entire U.S.) might vary according to how that question is answered. Another question might be whether votes cast for “None of these candidates” in Nevada are valid votes. A good case can be made that they are not valid votes, because there are no presidential elector candidates represented by such a vote.
What has the past practice been? My understanding is that the National Archives certifies a national popular vote total, and that’s what the FEC goes by.
You’ve pointed out before that the Archives tally doesn’t include write-ins who aren’t on the ballot in at least one state. It seems likely that same standard would continue to be applied, no? There’s also the precedent of how they tallied the results when calculating the funding triggered for Perot in ’92 and the Reform Party in ’96.
Johnson would also have to be pretty extremely close to exactly 5% for it to change the result of officially hitting 5 or not.
I pointed out that the Federal Election Commission, and America Votes (published by Congressional Quarterly) are the sources that add up the vote for all presidential candidates and publish them, and yet never include candidates who are not on the ballot anywhere. I never said anything about the policy of the National Archivist.
The Certificates of Ascertainment that go from the states to the National Archivist never include the vote for write-in presidential candidates who haven’t filed a list of electors. The National Archivist doesn’t ask for presidential vote totals. Instead it asks for the popular vote total for each candidate for presidential elector. The Certificates of Ascertainment are great for finding out the names of all candidates or presidential elector. The National Archivist doesn’t actually tally up the national popular vote totals for presidential candidates. The National Archivist just wants the data in case, when congress counts the electoral votes in early January, there is some dispute about the identity of the correctly-elected electors. That is why it is so crazy for the California Secretary of State to not determine who the presidential elector candidates in California are, for Donald Trump.
I see. Thanks for clarifying, I’d muddled the Archives / Congressional Quarterly bit.
It will be interesting to see what, if anything, California sends to the Archives.
If there’s otherwise little attention because Trump lost California anyway, and the SoS does something like not send a certification for Trump electors, or does for all 108 of them and that gets rejected somehow… then potentially Trump’s votes in California being taken out of the tally could have a much bigger impact on “total national popular votes cast” than write-ins. Romney got almost 5 million votes in California in 2012. That’s potentially enough to change the national total by 3-4%.
Richard,
The State of California has NO PROCEDURE IN STATUTE for translating marks on ballot papers into votes for presidential electors. Counties have apparently omitted mandatory language from instructions to voters.
Congress should not accept any purported appointment of electors from California. The US Constitution does not require a State to appoint presidential electors, but it does require any that are appointed to be appointed lawfully. This would be no problem, since the election of the president and vice president is based on the number of presidential electors that are appointed.
See website 483.com
The Archivist keeps the original certificate of ascertainment, and sends two certified copies (or additional originals) prepared by the States to the two houses of congress.
The State prepares six additional original certificates of ascertainment. After the presidential electors meet and vote, the six certificates of ascertainment are attached to six Certificates of Vote. One is sent two the President of the Senate (i.e. President of the Senate) who presides over the counting of electoral votes before a joint session of Congress. Ordinarily it would be the certificate of ascertainment attached to the certificate of vote which would be used.
It is impossible to ascertain who the presidential electors associated with Donald Duck or Richard Winger are. The fundamental problem is that no State permits voters to voter for individual presidential electors. If a voter could, then they could write-in anyone and it could ascertained how many votes they received.
How do states which don’t require write-ins to file a slate of electors (meaning any vote is valid) report the total? Bernie Sanders could get a fair number of write-ins in Vermont, which doesn’t require him or anyone else to file.
Looks like more nonstop violations of the 12th Amdt – by the HACKS and the bureaucrats.
NO mention of *certificates of ascertainment* in the 12th Amdt for starters — just *certificates* signed and certified by the Prez Electors — NO governors, NO secretary of States, NO State seals, etc.
Note also 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 — *electors for President and Vice President of the United States* —
Is a POPULAR election of such Prez electors REQUIRED — de facto replacing the *appointment* stuff in Art. II — otherwise lose USA Rep seats ???
How many TIMEBOMB machinations are obviously possible with the TIMEBOMB Electoral College ???
It’s amazing to go to see this website and reading the views of all
colleagues concerning this piece of writing, while
I am also eager of getting familiarity.