How many examples do you want to see?
Trump whined famously about how the Electoral College system was “anti-democratic” and “un-American” when he thought, mistakenly, that Romney had won the popular vote (but lost the EC). I wonder if Trump’s cult members will believe him when he whines in November 2020.
Wait - no I don’t.
So the way this would work is each state could pass legislation stating that an elector would be forbidden from voting on an candidate not providing a tax return. In a situation where said candidate garners the most votes but failed to provide tax returns, then the next highest vote getter who did will get the electorial votes.
That would be completely constitutional. Yes a candidate will still appear on the ballot but they will not get the electoral votes even if they win the plurality of votes in the state.
To not allow a candidate on the ballot wouldnt be constitutional, but there is iron clad precedent for a state to decide how their electors are selected and how they are allowed to vote as an elector.
Pay ■■■■■■■ attention to the words you used, “eligible to win” and try again.
Trump Worship has truly rotted the brains of a lot of people who used to at least act like functioning members of society…
3 Likes
Read Article II again.
This time without your Trump Loving googles on…
No sorry. Electors cannot be compelled to vote in any specific way, nor can a state hold a sham election and disregard the vote.
I wonder if this isn’t what the creatirs of the bill had in mind. Wouldn’t have made much sense if they went directly against the Constitution.
Don’t have any love for Trump and the constitution and it’s requirements for eligibility for the office predates both him and I.
Your posting betrays you
Point out where I say eligible to win:
I said
eligible to run for president.
required to be president?
Only requirments to run for president
to be eligible to run for president.
on a presidential candidate?
requirments to be eligible to be on the ballot:
So please quote my post where I said eligible to win
I stated an obvious fact, deal with it.
Yes they can actually. Not per say by force of law, but by the pledge they take.
So called faithless electors do exist but it is very very rare. When you pledge as an elector you do so understanding you are expected to follow the states guidelines for who you are to vote for.
Simply put, if you dont, you get replaced.
Try again Trumpy.
1 Like
If you don’t pledge you can be replaced but they can’t require or compel you to vote any specific way. Sorry you aren’t going to be allowed to do an end run around the constitution, judges aren’t stupid. A state can’t add to the constitutional eligibility requirements. Would it be constitutional for a state to say electors can only vote for white men?
I’ve posted all the times I’ve said it.
You are saying I said something different. Post a link to it if I did. Even if I edit something it shows the edit icon on the posts. So I haven’t edited anything.
So if I said “to win” . . . post a link. Otherwise I’ve shown you are incorrect.
They can state what they require to pledge as an elector. Still not legally binding for the elector to vote that way but the language can be there.
As to your question about only voting for white men, the answer is no. That would run afoul of the the 14th. Where tax return disclosure would not, each candidate is given equal opportunity to provide such documentation, whereas candidates dont get to choose what race they are.
Hillary Clinton released her tax returns.
Donald Trump won’t.
That’s delicious.
Umm yes, adding a further qualification would run afoul of the constitution as well. You can’t have it both ways. The constitution clearly states what those requirements are, just as it clearly states you can’t discriminate based on race, both are equally unconstitutional.
I don’t think there’s anything better than (cough) all these people who said they didn’t trust people in politics who now defend a known crook and con man from telling us about his finances while running the country domestically and internationally.
I knew they were fakes 30 years ago. I knew they were using Christ’s name to get votes 30 years ago. I knew they were not fiscally conservative 30 years ago.
Donald’s Trump outed you boys.
Reread the previous post. I outlined exactly why one does and the other doesnt.
