A “certificate of ascertainment” is a document filed by each jurisdiction that elects presidential electors. Under Title 3, section 6, of the U.S. Code, these documents must be signed by the Governor and filed with the National Archives. Here is California’s certificate, signed by Governor Jerry Brown.
California’s certificate is inaccurate on its face. It claims that the 55 Republican electors each received 4,483,810 popular votes. It also claims that the 55 American Independent Party electors, who are almost entirely different individuals, also received 4,483,810 votes. That means that 108 Trump electors each received 4,483,810 votes, even though California is only entitled to 55 electoral votes.
Two individuals were on both the Republican list and the American Independent Party list.
A more honest certificate of ascertainment would have said that it is impossible to know how many popular votes each of the presidential elector received, because voters who voted for Trump in California were forced to vote for 108 presidential electors, instead of 55. If Trump had received the most popular votes in California, there would be no way to know which of his 108 elector candidates had been elected. The mainstream press in California has ignored this event, even though it is believed that no state has ever before blundered in this way.
The Secretary of State of California first accepted the 55 AIP candidates, and then he also accepted the additional 53 Republican candidates. He should have told the American Independent and Republican Parties that he would not accept their lists unless the two parties agreed on a common slate of 55 Trump electors. If they had then refused, he should have printed two spaces on the ballot for Trump, so that any voter could choose whether to vote for the Republican slate or the AIP slate.
The write in votes on the certificate don’t square with the numbers on the Statement of Vote at http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2016-general/sov/2016-complete-sov.pdf
Any idea why?
I have a question about a minor detail about this. Since 108 is two short of 55 X 2, was the Republican elector slate short? Or were there two overlapping individuals (two individuals who appeared on both slates?)
@TomP: There were 2 overlapping individuals who were nominated as electors both by the Republicans and AIP. See http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/prior-elections/statewide-election-results/general-election-november-8-2016/ at the link for “List of Presidential Electors” for details.
Chris, thanks for noticing that. I hadn’t noticed that before and I have no idea why. Probably the Statement of Votes is more accurate because it came out later.
Major footnote for the LAWLESS CA MORON HACKS in the history of the 2016 Prez election.
In California voters vote for elector slates proposed by each party. Voters are instructed to vote for one party, but no California county provided a ballot with a mechanism for actually doing so.
Based on the 1972 precedent for Pima County in Arizona, the popular votes for both parties should be attributed to Trump and Pence. Under the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution, members of the National Popular Scheme would have no choice but to count the California vote as being 8.8 popular votes for Trump and Pence.
California has no statutes for translating marks on ballot papers into votes for presidential electors. You should suggest to your state senator, that rather hot-dogging about tax returns, he should clean up the elections code with respect to presidential elections (currently a mess), regulation of party activities (a gross unconstitutional overreach), and qualification of parties (no modicum of support necessary, and violation of 1st Amendment, and California Constitution.
A similar case was in New York State this year. Thomas V. Dadey, Jr. of the Republican Party is not the same person as Thomas A. Dadey on the Conservative Party. 28 electors received 2,792,904 on both tickets, while 1 Republican elector received 2,503,755 votes and 1 Conservative elector received 289,149 votes.
In addition, the 29 Independence Party electors for Gary Johnson were not the same individuals on the Libertarian Party for Gary Johnson and these totals for these two parties can not be combined.
As is the case for New York, the totals may vary as the certified totals have changed twice.
(Coming across this only sixteen months after it happened!)
Hey, Demo? You’re a blithering idiot who finds a way to insert his bullshit rightist narrative into everything.
And, oh boy, Jim—give the state a candidate won by 30 percent of the vote (a 4.3 million absolute margin) to the other candidate because of a technical error? And employing tortured reasoning followed by a psychotic solution the dirtiest, most conniving bureaucrat couldn’t dream of.
Ah, but the input doesn’t carry much weight all these months after the fact. But maybe the five people who chance upon this article for the rest of human history won’t then question their own sanity after reading such a comment going unchallenged.
@Laurence,
California permitted a voter to voter for two distinct elector slates associated with Donald Trump. This is similar to the 1972 presidential election in Arizona, where because of a confusing ballot, votes were cast for both Linda Jenness and another candidate. Officially these were treated as votes for both candidates. Donald J Trump received over 8.9 popular votes in California.
Under the National Popular Vote Scheme, these votes would count in determining the national popular vote winner. The National Popular Vote Scheme was not in effect in 2016. But had it been, this is the most reasonable interpretation. The scheme does not define what a “popular vote” is, and does not prevent a state from permitting a voter from casting multiple popular votes for president.
This is what happens when conniving lawyers attempt to circumvent the constitution.