Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kvkkc1 who wrote (115017)	12/13/2000 6:28:27 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

It says a majority of the WHOLE NUMBER OF ELECTORS, so now that would translate to 271.

To: kvkkc1 who wrote (115017)	12/13/2000 6:38:45 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

The Second Amendment is the right to bear arms. I presume you are referring to Article II, the Executive Branch, in particular, Section 1, which in pertinent part provides: "-- the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed. . ." [Emphasis added.] At issue is whether the requisite number is the majority of all 538 electors, or only a majority of those electors qualified to vote. The general accepted reading of this provision is to mean the majority of ALL appointed electors, whether the votes of any electors are conclusive or not. This means that in order to be certified as president, the president-elect needs a majority of 538 appointed electors, or 270 (my mistake citing 271; forgive me) and not simply a majority of the votes cast or accepted. If for example, several states, let's assume large states had their electors in question such that their votes were inconclusive, the forgoing interpretation forbids the certification of president based upon the absence of a sufficient number electoral votes of due to likely conflicts at the state level. Thus, if you were from California or New York or Illinois, and the electors from your state were in question, such inconclusivity would likely throw the matter to the House whereby those potentially disenfranchised states would still have a say in the next president. Makes sense?