Kevin Kosar, an Expert on Congress, Tries to Imagine How Congress Would Choose President if No One Gets a Majority of the Electoral College

Posted on by

The Hill has this essay by Kevin R. Kosar, an expert on Congress, on what it would be like if no presidential candidate gets an electoral college majority in December 2024. Article II says the U.S. House chooses the president when that happens, with each state’s delegation casting one vote and a majority of the state delegates needed to choose the new president. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

Comments

Kevin Kosar, an Expert on Congress, Tries to Imagine How Congress Would Choose President if No One Gets a Majority of the Electoral College — 22 Comments

  1. ONE MORE MINORITY RULE MACHINATION.

    CA = WY — YEAH. SURE.

    ABOLISH THE SUPER-TIME BOMB EC.

    SEE 1860 >>> 750,000 DEAD IN 1861-1866
    —
    P-A-T

  2. Amending this section of the Constitution is virtually impossible in the present political climate.

    But, there are non-Constitutional changes that could be made to mitigate its potentially disruptive consequences:

    1. Congress could enact the Wyoming Rule to expand the size of the House of Representatives. Under the most recent census figures, this would expand the size of the house by +100 members, and make both it, and the electoral college more proportional to population.

    2. Larger states can be divided into several new, smaller states, making states a bit more equal in population. IMO, states that contain +5% of the total US population should be divided This could result in CA and TX being divided into 4 new states each, and FL and NY being divided into 3 new states each.

  3. 1787 REMEDY —

    IGNORE THE 1777 ART CONFED — CREATE NEW REGIME.

    LET OLDE REGIME ROT TO DEATH.

    19 APR 1775 / 4 JULY 1776 REMEDY ALWAYS AVAILABLE.

    BASIC – WOULD NEED LARGER LEFT/RIGHT STATES TO DEMAND REFORMS.
    —
    P-A-T

  4. Keep the Electoral College. Compensation would have prevented war. Still due, with 158 years of compounded interest.

  7. AZ wrote:

    “1787 REMEDY —

    IGNORE THE 1777 ART CONFED — CREATE NEW REGIME.

    LET OLDE REGIME ROT TO DEATH.”

    What that means in practice is that ALL the states must ratify the new document for it to apply to every single one. Recall that NC and RI hadn’t ratified the 1787 Constitution when it went into effect, and were technically independent until they each ratified it.

    How long before ALL 50 STATES ratify a new, federal constitution, for it to apply to ALL of them, IF EVER??

  9. Az posted:

    “https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/09/politics/congress-majorities-what-matters/index.html

    1 chart to explain the current dysfunction in Congress
    —-
    GERRYMANDER RESULTS – USA H REPS 1973-2024

    SEPARATE CHART FOR USA SENATE GERRYMANDER ROT.
    —”

    The Founders had a term for what we call “gridlock”:

    Checks and Balances

    It’s a FEATURE of our Constitution NOT a flaw. It essentially compels every radical or consequential change to obtain a virtual super-majority, NOT a simple majority.

  10. The 13th Amendment required NEITHER compensation to former slaveholders, NOR reparations to former slaves. It just freed the slaves, simple as that, which was probably the best option under the circumstances.

  11. In any event, any attempt to write a new Constitution with no Senate with equal state representation probably wouldn’t be ratified by more than 30 states, essentially granting at least 20 states with instant independence.

  12. 13th amendment was illegally adopted after the war. Compensation would have prevented war,just as it did everywhere else in the Americas except Haiti.

    The 13th amendment could not address taking what had been legal property without compensation. Legally, what is or isn’t legal property can change, but compensation is required when it does change. The owners of what had been legal property couldn’t have known it would become illegal.

    Suppose the animal rights argument prevails in 2065. Farmers, ranchers, zookeepers, pet owners etc should be compensated for the liberation of their animals.

  13. “Compensation would have prevented war,just as it did everywhere else in the Americas except Haiti. ”

    This ignores the historical reality that the Republicans were NOT advocating for the abolition of slavery in 1860. All Lincoln advocated was that slavery NOT be extended into any new territories. Lincoln even voiced support for the Cowin amendment after his election, which would have prevented the federal government from abolishing slavery in any state in which it already existed.

    But, the Southern states couldn’t accept this, because their expectation was that all the new territory below the 37th parallel was to be set aside for new slave states to balance any new free states This would have meant they they expected new slave states to be formed where New Mexico, Arizona, southern Nevada, and even southern California are now.

    This is supported, IMO, by the fact that the earliest battles in the Civil War were fought in the Southwest territories, a fact which is not generally recognized.

    Lincoln didn’t opt for emancipation until he was advised that issuing the Emancipation Proclamation – an executive order of questionable constitutionality – because it would be a weapon in the war against the south.

    All of which had to be sanctioned by the 13th Amendment after the war.

  14. This was all posturing. Republicans wanted to end slavery, and Southerners understood this. Compensation would have prevented it. The improperly adopted 13th amendment doesn’t ex post facto justify uncompensated confiscation of what had been legally held property.

  15. “Compensation would have prevented it.”

    There were four significant Presidential candidates in 1860.

    NONE, I repeat NONE of them were talking about abolition. Compensation didn’t even enter into the conversation. It was ALL about the future of the territories.

    IMO, the Southern states just doomed themselves and slavery by seceding. They basically surrendered all the power of the federal government to their opponents, and have NO ONE but themselves to blame for the outcome.

    Which is probably what will happen to any states in the future who attempt unilateral secession.

  16. WZ –

    1787 CONST –
    ART 7

    9 STATES OF OLDE REGIME CREATED NEW REGIME. 2 ADDED BEFORE 4 MAR 1789 NEW REGIME

    NC AND RI BECAME *FOREIGN* REGIMES UNTIL THEY RATIFIED.

    1777 ART CONFED LEFT TO ROT IN POLITICS GRAVEYARD OF DEAD REGIMES.
    —-
    EMAN PROC –PART OF 1862 INSURRECTION/REBELLION LAW
    —
    14-4 AMDT — NOOO COMP FOR SLAVERS IN REBEL STATES

  17. NOOO COMP FOR CRIMINALS WHO USE PROPERTY TO COMMIT CRIMES –

    IE THE SLAVERS IN REBELLION AGAINST USA IN 1861-1865.

    SLAVE PROPERTY FORFEITED/LIBERATED

    SAME NOW- ESP RICO CRIMINALS

    MOST TOP CONFEDS NOT PROSECUTED FOR REBELLION ONLY DUE TO PREZ A JOHNSON [FROM TENN – A REBEL STATE] PARDONING THEM – MOSTLY IN 1868-1869.
    —-

    LOSE A CIVIL WAR AND PAY THE PRICE

    OTHER REGIMES — ALL THE TOP CONFEDS WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED-

    SEE LATER 1936-1939 SPANISH CIVIL WAR LOSERS —- 1927-1949 CHINA CIVIL WAR LOSERS.

  18. WZ, you continue to confuse public rhetoric with what everyone on all sides understood to be the essence of the matter.

    AZ, not all slave states seceded. And of course some were going to fight when a large portion of many men’s net worth was going to be confiscated without compensation.

  19. DOI 2ND PARA

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–

    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —

    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

    But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–

    —–
    BOTH ROTTED TO THE CORE COMMIE DONKEYS / FASCIST ELEPHANTS GANGS

    WITH THEIR NONSTOP MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDER POWERS

    — a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism.

    HOW MANY **DESPOTIC*** SOCIAL-ECONOMIC CONTROL FREAK LAWS SINCE 1776 IN THE USA ???

    ESP SINCE 1861 / 1917 / 1941 / 1950 / 2001 / 2021 ???

    HOW MANY CURRENT *EMERGENCY* LAWS —- ALLOWING PREZS / GOVS TO TAKE OVER USA/STATE ECONOMIES ???
    —-
    P-A-T

  21. More fake news and irrelevant blathering from AZ. And, once again, Demonrats are much closer to fascist than Republicans are.

  22. AZ IZ AN ARTIFICIAL ZTUPIDITY AUTOMATON ZOMBIE PROGRAMMED TO ENDLESSLY REPEAT ABSOLUTE ZERO IQ BS AND NEVER EVER LEARN ANYTHING. IT IS THE ULTIMATE TROLL MORON, PROGRAMMED BY CLUELESS PRESCHOOLERS.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.