Talk:Electoral College
I removed the statement "In 1960, John F. Kennedy was similarly elected over Richard Nixon", which followed "In 1888, Grover Cleveland got a plurality of the popular vote (by a margin of 110,476) but Benjamin Harrison won the electoral college vote, and became president". It may be argued that Nixon got more popular votes than Kennedy due to the confusing Alabama results; however, that situation would need to be explained fully. It's hardly "similar" to the 1888 election. Dadsnagem2 15:38, 15 December 2007 (EST)
1876
There is a precedent to sidestep the Constitutional process. In 1876, when Electoral ballots were in duspute, the DC legislature established a closed door Committee to investigate. The issue was not resolved in the House, as Constitution prescribes. Rather, "disputed electors" were awarded to one candidate. RobS#NeverHillary 05:41, 24 December 2016 (EST)
Inaccurate statements
- If the state legislature mandates that mail-in ballots have matching signatures, observed by representatives of both parties and received by 8 PM on Election day, no governor, secretary of state, election commission, local election supervisors, court, state Supreme Court, or federal Supreme Court can override, rewrite, or undo the state legislature's plenary power. These facts are precisely what occurred in three states - Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Wisconsin - with enough electors to overturn the election.
- IMO, the Communist democrats' opposition to the Electoral College is what leads to a misunderstanding of what it is, why it exists, and the system of checks and balances. The people's elected representatives - the legislative branch - decide who the chief executive will be, not dictators and corrupt thieves incumbent in the executive branches throughout the nation. Neither should an independent judiciary get involved in politics, which it doesn't like to do anyway, but is increasingly called upon to do so. They are not the final judge of an election outcome (for example, if the Communist democrats did not like the 2000 Bush v. Gore ruling, they were free to present their own slate of electors and challenge the Florida electors before the legislative branch. But they didn't, cause their case had no merit then, as their attempts at election theft again have no merit now. RobSFree Kyle! 23:21, 4 January 2021 (EST)
