Green Party Watch recently said that the U.S. Constitution forbids a party from running a candidate for president and a candidate for vice-president who are both from the same state. This is a common misconception.
The 12th Amendment says that a presidential elector can’t vote for someone for president and someone else for vice-president, if both candidates are from that elector’s home state. So, the only barrier is that the electors from one particular state can’t vote for such a team. Electors in the other 49 states are free to vote for a team in which both members are from the same state.
Also, the ban only applies to residence in December of the presidential election, the month when the electors vote. So if a minor party did carry the state in which both the president and vice-president live, the electors are still free to vote for that team if either the presidential candidate, or the vice-presidential candidate, moves out of that state before the mid-December date when the electors vote.
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney both lived in Texas when they were nominated in 2000, but Cheney switched his residence to Wyoming, so that the Bush-Cheney ticket was able to receive the votes of the Texas electors.
In the past, the Socialist Workers Party frequently nominated two New Yorkers, one for president and one for vice-president. The party’s national office has always been in New York and it was usually more convenient to the party to have both candidates living in New York. Challenges to the party’s ballot position in New York were made on the basis of residence, but the New York State Courts always upheld the SWP’s ballot position.
Trivia question: when was the last time that a presidential elector cast both his electoral votes for two persons from the same State.
2004, when that strange Minnesota Democratic elector voted for John Edwards for both president and vice-persident.
Some investigative reporter ought to track down which elector did that, and ask that elector “Why did you do that?” The press assumed that the elector was just confused. But no one knows which elector did that, because Minnesota electors have a secret ballot. Someone ought to be able to interview all the Minnesota 2004 electors and figure it out. If the person is embarassed, maybe by now he or she would fess up.
One more reason to abolish the MORONIC Electoral College — a STONE AGE relic that is a nonstop political timebomb every 4 years.
Uniform definition of Elector in all of the U.S.A.
NONPARTISAN nomination and election of all elected executive officiers and all judges using Approval Voting.
Way too difficult for the EVIL party hacks in the many very small States to understand.
Which E.C. timebomb election WILL produce Civil War II ??? 2008, 2012, etc. — pick a year.
Civil WAR I in 1861-1865 after the 1860 E.C. timebomb went off — regardless of ALL New Age business as usual math MORONS — who are brain dead clueless about the difference between monarchy/oligarchy and REAL Democracy.
Tick tock, tick tock — the E.C. timebomb ticks on.
Actually Richard, with several people writing there, you may want to point to the particular author who messed up rather than put the onus on Green Party Watch as a whole. I erred, and as you pointed out, it’s a common error.
Green Party Watch didn’t get it wrong, I did.
Thanks for the correction Richard. I hope you made a comment at GPW. If not, please do. Your reputation is such that your correction would be more noticed than if I fixed it myself.
I agree that the Green Party should not rule out the possibility of nominating two candidates from the same state, but both the campaign and the party should be prepared for the possibility of lawsuits and weigh the costs and benefits.
As I argued on Green Party Watch, I think Richard is clearly right about the constitutional law, and any competent court should agree, but the Democrats can always pull a 2004 and parachute in Larry Tribe to intimidate the judges with frivolous arguments, dragging out the process and imposing financial burdens and uncertainty on the campaign.
I tried to comment at Green Party Watch, but I can’t get “blogger.com” (or whatever it’s called) to accept my registration, and unless I register, I can’t comment. I only posted here, at my own site, out of frustration that I couldn’t post a comment at Green Party Watch.
To Demo Rep–If it wasn’t for the Electoral College, we would not have been counting the votes in four counties in Florida in 2000. We would have been counting ALL the votes in ALL the counties in ALL the states.
If the U.S. had used the national popular vote to elect a president in 2000, I doubt a recount would have been necessary. The Gore margin over Bush nationwide was 537,179 votes, a margin of .51% (Gore got 48.38%, Bush got 47.87%). A half-percent is really a large margin. Recounts typically don’t change anything unless the original tally had been within one-tenth of 1% or less.
# 7 — So What ???
Defending Democracy takes some WORK.
If necessary, then mobilize ALL able bodied adults on Election Days to count the votes in each precinct using human eyeballs — except for police, fire, military type folks on active duty.
Sorry – possible bad TV ratings that day.
How many statewide recounts since 1776 – offices and issues ???
Abolish the timebomb Electoral College NOW — before Civil WAR II happens because of E.C. machinations.
There will be about 8-10 marginal E.C. timebomb States in 2008.
Richard,
Thank You. I too tried to post to Green Party Watch.
Gregg. You guys are doing good work over there.
Thank You. Keep at it.
Richard did you notice that Cindy Sheehan’s press release noted she’d raised $200,000..
Ballot access looks like she’ll need it…with the date growing near.
The logistical challenge and budget issues re: two candidates from California..flights to east coast…
Of course Michael Bloomberg could solve all these issues for the Green Party, as surely you agree Gregg.
😉
If the popular vote had been used in 2000, there is no way to tell what the result would have been. Nader would more likely been on the ballot in Georgia and North Carolina, and might not have been as easy to squeeze in other States, where it appeared that he might cost Gore electoral votes, such as Oregon. And the campaigns would likely have been conducted differently.
John Edwards is only one person.
2004 PREZ GERRYMANDER MATH
B BUSH, K KERRY, OTH OTHER
W WIN, L LOSE
ECV ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES
PCT PERCENT OF POPULAR VOTES
MW MINORITY WINNER
STATES/DC IN HIGH TO LOW ORDER BY BUSH PERCENT.
ECV ECV PCT ECV PCT OTH B-K PCT
SAFE BUSH 213
UT, WY, ID, NE, OK, ND, AL, KS, TX, AK, IN, SD, KY, MS, MT, SC, GA, TN, LA, WV, NC, AZ, AR, VA, MO
MARGINAL BUSH 73
FL 27 BW 27 52.10 KL 0 47.09 0.81 5.01
CO 9 BW 9 51.69 KL 0 47.02 1.29 4.67
OH 20 BW 20 50.81 KL 0 48.71 0.48 2.10
NV 5 BW 5 50.47 KL 0 47.88 1.65 2.59
IA 7 BW 7 49.90 KL 0 49.23 0.87 0.67 MW
NM 5 BW 5 49.84 KL 0 49.05 1.11 0.79 MW
TOTAL BUSH 286
———
MARGINAL KERRY 69
WI 10 BL 0 49.32 KW 10 49.70 0.98 -0.38 MW
NH 4 BL 0 48.87 KW 4 50.24 0.89 -1.37
PA 21 BL 0 48.42 KW 21 50.92 0.66 -2.50
MI 17 BL 0 47.81 KW 17 51.23 0.96 -3.42
MN 10 BL 0 47.61 KW 10 51.09 1.30 -3.48
OR 7 BL 0 47.19 KW 7 51.35 1.46 -4.16
SAFE KERRY 183
NJ, DE, WA, HI, ME, IL, CA, CT, MD, NY, VT, RI, MA, DC
TOTAL KERRY 252
HOW MANY POSSIBLE WAYS TO GET A 269-269 TIMEBOMB TIE IN 2008 – regardless of all wonks ???
Pity the poor suffering voters in the really marginal E.C. gerrymander States — IA, NM, WI and NH — facing a deluge of TV attack ads, lawsuits, recounts, etc. etc.
Rest up the Supremes — Bush v. Gore 2000 may become trivial by comparison to 2008 stuff.
—–
DEMOCRACY NOW. ABOLISH THE TIMEBOMB ELECTORAL COLLEGE.
UNIFORM DEFINITION OF ELECTOR IN ALL OF THE U.S.A.
NONPARTISAN nomination and election of all elected executive officers and all judges using Approval Voting.
In 1792, the 4 Kentucky electors voted for George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. This was Kentucky’s first participation in a presidential election.
In 1789, Kentucky was still part of Virginia, and Virginia chose its presidential electors by district, one of which included Kentucky. It’s conceivable that the same voters could have chosen the same presidential elector, who would have not constitutionally been able to do in 1789, what they did do in 1792.