Who needs elections anyway?
12 Likes
I notice they only allow him to use blunted scissors. It’s a lucky break, with those tiny hands.
8 Likes
True, but with all those pointy bits, he’s bound to get paper cuts on his widdle fingers (I hope). 
4 Likes
BTW, this cartoon is from last year.
My then-fiancee was traveling from grad school in the Great Lakes area to the West Coast where I lived. On her way through Montana she planned on stopping at the memorial but was disappointed to find that Custer had been buried at West Point. She was planning on honoring him as he deserved.
2 Likes
It’s not the margin, it’s a question of what it means to get an outright majority of electoral votes. The constitution assumes every state submits its electoral votes, it doesn’t list any kind of quorum rule. So yes, you’re right, but if a bunch of states just don’t hold elections on time, he’s less likely to reach 270 electoral votes.
There’s precedent for this going back to the first Presidential election. Yes, the one that elected Washington unanimously. North Carolina and Rhode Island were disqualified, because in 1789 they had not yet ratified the Constitution. New York did not seat a panel of electors, because the State legislature deadlocked. While Washington was elected ‘unanimously’, Vice President John Adams did not have a majority of the electors of all the States, just a plurality of the States that voted. He carried 34 electoral votes out of 69 possible. (The second-place candidate, John Jay, carried only 9, and the remaining were divided among a wide group.)
Similarly, the States in rebellion in the 1864 election simply did not have their votes counted, and Lincoln did not need a majority of all votes, merely a majority the electors of those States who seated qualified electors. (I’d have to reread my history to be certain, but if memory serves, there was at least one rebel State that presented a certificate of election, which was rejected by both Houses of Congress, on the grounds that a State couldn’t have it both ways - both secede and claim the right to vote.)
The only way for an election to devolve to the House of Representatives is if there are three or more candidates, none of whom achieves a majority of the electoral votes actually cast, or if two candidates actually tie numerically.
Far more likely is that individual States’ certificates of election will be challenged in Congress, with each House retiring separately to deliberate. That’s even more likely if a State sends more than one certificate, for instance if the legislature and the governor are of different parties and each sends a certificate, or if a governor tries to veto a slate of electors empanelled by the legislature. But it’s possible that any State’s vote will be challenged, for instance, trying to throw out deep-blue California because the governor ordered a universal absentee vote.
Similarly, ‘Acting President Pelosi’ is not a possibility. She, like any Representative, loses her seat on January 3 if the election to re-elect or replace her does not take place. (Although, of course, there are scenarios in which a partial Congress is convened, since all elections are conducted by the individual States. It’s pretty unpredictable, in those scenarios, which States will succeed in presenting Congressional delegations.)
If somehow the election does devolve on the House of Representatives, it will depend on which States actually manage to send Representatives to the new Congress. Remember, too, that in that case the Constitution prescribes, ‘one State, one vote’, not the conventional rules of the House. In the current Congress, the Republicans hold majorities of their delegations in 25 States, the Democrats in 24, with one State’s delegation evenly split. This division arises because the Democrats overwhelmingly represent large States with correspondingly large delegations. In a Presidential election in the House, Wyoming’s lone Representative would have one vote, while California’s fifty-three would share one vote among all of them.
And all of this depends on there being some semblance of constitutional government left. In a constitutional crisis, that’s not by any means guaranteed. In any of these nightmares, the election may well be decided by whosever[*] orders the military follows.
[*] Why does the spell checker object to whosever?
3 Likes
Thanks, I hadn’t known about the 1789 VP election!
If most states fail to do their elections, but California does hold its elections, (and she wins her election) then Pelosi can be sworn in, and thus would be available to take up the mantle, assuming there were enough other representatives to select a speaker of the house (I’m not sure what the rules around that would be in the case that a large number of seats were not yet filled)
It’s also a possibility that the elections go as normal everywhere but the presidential count gets disputed and not resolved by January, so there’s a congress in place, but no executive.
However, I’m sure that if there’s a dispute, it will very quickly end up in the supreme court, and a ruling declaring the winner will happen regardless of whether not most states manage to hold fair and free elections.
The new Congress is in charge of resolving such disputes. That’s its role in the process. So far it has never thrown up its hands and appointed the Speaker of the House to be President.
That would be reminiscent, but much worse, than Bush v. Gore in 2000
Obviously it could happen, but it would be very bad, and not how the system is supposed to work
3 Likes
It can’t really do that anyway. Jan 3rd, the House can only appoint a President Elect from the presidential contenders in the College.
I don’t think even Acting Caretaker President for a couple weeks Pelosi is possible. The only way if it gets to Pelosi (assuming there’s a House and she’s the Speaker) is under the Presidential succession rules if there’s no President Elect on Jan 20th, and meanwhile the Senate will be appointing the VP Elect (between Pence and Ms X), blocking her on the batting order.
eta: If the new Senate leans Democratic, or if the outgoing Republicans aren’t replaced, America would have a new Madame President X.
era2: If there was no Electoral College, quibblers will say that Congress can’t appoint anyone, but there’s no good path out of chaos that way.
3 Likes
I’ve always seen it as ‘whosoever’.
6 Likes
Apologies if this point has already been made.
5 Likes
The full quote
“Delay the election, because there is no way in hell I will win it”
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
