[EM] Nader could designate same electors as Kerry

[Dave Ketchum]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 23:47:29 -0400 John Hicks wrote:

> On Wednesday 30 June 2004 11:20 am, MIKE OSSIPOFF 
> wrote:
> ...
> 
>>So there's sure to be an argument that that
>>same-electors arrangement is illegal. 
>>If so, then the wording of the Consititution 
>>should be checked out. 
>>Maybe it says that a candidate can designate
>>any electors s/he wants to.
>>
> 
> By luck, and through sources that I dare not name, I 
> have been given access to a copy of the document in 
> question and am thus able to answer your question:
> 
> It turns out that it doesn't say anything about a 
> candidate designating electors at all. Rather . . .
> 
> "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the 
> Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, 
> equal to the whole Number of Senators and 
> Representatives to which the State may be entitled in 
> the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or 
> Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the 
> United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
> 
> So it is up to the legislature of each state to 
> determine a method of appointing its electors.
> 
> I would think that one would have to look at the 
> relevant legislation in each state to determine if the 
> "same-electors" approach would work in that state. My 
> gut tells me that it's unlikely it could be pulled off 
> in all 50 states but it just might be possible in one 
> or two states. 
> 
> And that alone would make for a very interesting election 
> night.


Doesn't get too exciting on election night.  We do fusion in NY, so by 
election night we know that one slate of electors nominated more than once 
gets the votes added just as for individual candidates.
      Without fusion there presumably would be no adding, so that two 
slates dedicated to the same candidate would work against that candidate 
by splitting the vote.

The nominating can get more exciting - in 2000 NY's Independence, not 
having a better choice, thought of sharing Nader with the Greens - idea 
died when Greens declared sharing to be intolerable.
      BTW - there could have been two slates with different members, each 
committed to Nader - STUPID because they would split the Nader vote.

Someplace in this thread there was talk about two slates that shared some, 
but not all, members.  This could create all kinds of headaches and I 
suspect, would be treated in NY as separate slates.

BTW - do not know of any NY law restricting how an elector acts:
      Generally expected that they are nominated to vote for a particular 
candidate.
      In 1996 I got nominated, but made ZERO promise as to how I would act 
if elected.
      In 2000 I helped prepare a promise that all potential Independence 
electors signed before getting nominated.

> 
> John Hicks

-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.