Main Menu

Article II Super PAC plans to pressure electors

It looks like some of the birthers are planning to hijack the next election. The following promotional piece was put out by the Article II Super PAC.

A key to developing A2’s political/campaign strategy for the general election is by first looking at the Electoral College rules/codes in all 50 states. Why?

In the general election we are casting our votes for citizens from our respective states to serve in the Electoral College. 538 members are elected in total.

It is this body, 538 electors, who then casts their respective vote either for the individual who won the majority or who still has independence to cast their votes for  whomever. 

Soros has been pouring money into states, especially blue ones, to change their Electoral College election code to legally tie the hands of those elected to vote for the nominee who won the majority of votes cast.

However, there are plenty of states that have not passed such code.

A2 knows this but we don’t know what all of those specific states are and we don’t know where we can apply pressure or sway the elector.

Wow! Do they realize how ominous “apply pressure” sounds?

The Article II Super PAC is also raising money to fund a $10,000 retainer (they need $4,000 more)  for birther law professor Herb Titus to come on board and assist. I wonder if Titus knows their plan to pressure members of the Electoral College break their pledge to the people who elected them.

Apparently the Article II bogey man is the “National Popular Vote interstate compact (NPVIC),” which if ratified by enough states to comprise a majority of the Electoral Vote would require electors in those states to vote for whoever won the popular vote nationwide. Since only 8 states plus DC have joined the compact (comprising 24.5% of the electoral vote) , it doesn’t kick in and will not have any consequence for this election. How George Soros is supposed to be involved escapes me.  Here’s an example of a NPVIC Bill from California.)

States currently in the NPVIC are:

  • California
  • District of Columbia
  • Hawaii
  • Illinois
  • Maryland
  • Massachusetts
  • New Jersey
  • Vermont
  • Washington

That list is distinct from the twenty-four states with laws requiring electors to honor their pledges and the Supreme Court has ruled such laws constitutional. A member of the Electoral College who votes against their pledge is called a “faithless elector.”  There have been a number of faithless electors in history, particularly when their candidate died between the election and the meeting of the College.

A bill in Nebraska would make it a Class IV felony for an elector to vote for a candidate not certified as eligible by the Secretary of State (something the bill says requires a birth certificate).

Read More:

,

10 Responses to Article II Super PAC plans to pressure electors

  1. avatar
    Lupin March 23, 2012 at 3:19 am #

    It was bound to happen that sooner or later your electoral system would be manipulated by forces intent to thwart the popular will. Between that and the clear schism in your Republican party, I think your system is in need of a serious overhaul — but I can’t quite imagine it will happen.

  2. avatar
    J. Potter March 23, 2012 at 3:58 am #

    Lupin:
    It was bound to happen that sooner or later your electoral system would be manipulated by forces intent to thwart the popular will. Between that and the clear schism in your Republican party, I think your system is in need of a serious overhaul — but I can’t quite imagine it will happen.

    Who says it hasn’t been?

    “there are plenty of states that have not passed such code.

    “… A2 knows this but we don’t know what all of those specific states are and we don’t know where we can apply pressure or sway the elector.”

    Reading this over, it looks like A2 doesn’t seem to know much. Perhaps they could use a research division? Like ….. a 6th grader with a telephone and access to Google?

    “…especially blue ones” …. heh.

  3. avatar
    The Magic M March 23, 2012 at 6:17 am #

    > If approved the states would agree to appoint electors pledged to whoever got the most popular votes nationally.

    I wonder if that’s constitutional. After all, it tells the state’s voters “your votes don’t mean squat if the majority in the other states has a different opinion”.
    I consider that an end-run attempt to effectively discard the role of the electoral college as representing the states and make the presidential elections a normal popular vote issue.

    Not that there’s something wrong with that, just about every other country handles it that way. I also don’t consider it right that some contrived voting system means you can win even though you got less votes than your opponent.

    [In my country, there are several types of election (at federal, state and community level) that use vastly different voting methods. For example, in some local elections you have as many as 10 votes which you can distribute among candidates (you could cast all 10 for the same or, say, 6 for one of them and 3 for another and 1 for yet another and so on).
    In the federal elections, you have two votes – one for the party and one for the candidate representing your district. This leads to tricky issues if there are districts where one party won the party vote and the candidate of another party won the candidate vote (usually happens with very popular candidates representing smaller parties). That creates an additional seat in the parliament which, in turn, potentially requires more additional seats to recreate the percentage distribution dictated by the party vote. *sigh* In some elections, this meant as much as 10% additional seats.
    Voting for party lists means some candidates are effectively guaranteed a seat – being on #1 of her party list means it’s virtually impossible to vote our chancellor out of parliament.]

  4. avatar
    That Other Mike March 23, 2012 at 7:48 am #

    The Magic M:
    > If approved the states would agree to appoint electors pledged to whoever got the most popular votes nationally.

    I wonder if that’s constitutional. After all, it tells the state’s voters “your votes don’t mean squat if the majority in the other states has a different opinion”.
    I consider that an end-run attempt to effectively discard the role of the electoral college as representing the states and make the presidential elections a normal popular vote issue.

    Not that there’s something wrong with that, just about every other country handles it that way. I also don’t consider it right that some contrived voting system means you can win even though you got less votes than your opponent.

    The NPV system would most likely be ruled entirely Constitutional – the States are free to appoint their Electors in whatever fashion they like. Allowing the general public to vote for their Electors is popular and universal, but it is not Constitutionally required; the States could appoint their Electors according to the wishes of their legislatures without allowing a popular vote at all, and that would be perfectly legal.

    [In my country, there are several types of election (at federal, state and community level) that use vastly different voting methods. For example, in some local elections you have as many as 10 votes which you can distribute among candidates (you could cast all 10 for the same or, say, 6 for one of them and 3 for another and 1 for yet another and so on).
    In the federal elections, you have two votes – one for the party and one for the candidate representing your district. This leads to tricky issues if there are districts where one party won the party vote and the candidate of another party won the candidate vote (usually happens with very popular candidates representing smaller parties). That creates an additional seat in the parliament which, in turn, potentially requires more additional seats to recreate the percentage distribution dictated by the party vote. *sigh* In some elections, this meant as much as 10% additional seats.
    Voting for party lists means some candidates are effectively guaranteed a seat – being on #1 of her party list means it’s virtually impossible to vote our chancellor out of parliament.]

    Oh, you’re German. I thought you were, but that rather confirms it. I must admit, it’s been a long time since I learned about the Bundestag, but I remember thinking that while the combination of lists and local candidacies was rather clever but descended into being overcomplicated.

  5. avatar
    sactosintolerant March 23, 2012 at 8:47 am #

    When I read that, I assumed they were talking about the NPV, but the NPV website shows which states have passed the bill, so it won’t be too hard to figure ou if the website is still around.

  6. avatar
    Reality Check March 23, 2012 at 12:41 pm #

    The Birthers tried this in 2008. Democratic-Disaster.com started by Doug Schell (aka Captain Moroni) ran a campaign to fax/call all the Obama electors to send their Birther nonsense. Not one elector defected. What they fail to understand is that the vast majority if the electors are appointed because they are extremely loyal to a given candidate.

  7. avatar
    BillTheCat March 23, 2012 at 1:10 pm #

    I always get a chuckle out of these unintelligent folks who shout “Soros is pouring money into blah blah blah” – No, he isn’t. Period. Where do they invent this nonsense? I have yet to see one shred, one iota of evidence or proof that Soros does any of the crap they claim he does. Utter fantasy.

  8. avatar
    JPotter March 23, 2012 at 1:25 pm #

    Reality Check: What they fail to understand is that the vast majority if the electors are appointed because they are extremely loyal to a given candidate.

    May be time for an article on the electoral college. I would add that each state’s legislature determines how electors are selected, it’s a bit all over the place, and was further complicated by the evolution of parties. The multiple layers or protection against intrigue were thoughtful …. don’t do any favors to conspiracy nuts tho 😉

    Wiki has an an excellent article from which further research can be launched.

  9. avatar
    JPotter March 23, 2012 at 1:27 pm #

    BillTheCat: “Soros is pouring money into blah blah blah”

    Soros is another bogeyman. Alinsky brings the brains, Soros brings the wallet.

    Right.

  10. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny March 23, 2012 at 2:00 pm #

    The Magic M: This leads to tricky issues if there are districts where one party won the party vote and the candidate of another party won the candidate vote (usually happens with very popular candidates representing smaller parties). That creates an additional seat in the parliament which, in turn, potentially requires more additional seats to recreate the percentage distribution dictated by the party vote. *sigh* In some elections, this meant as much as 10% additional seats.

    Ah, the notorious Ueberhangmandate! Though particularly attractive in Berlin (it was well-known that extreme-right and other protest voters gave their first vote to the communist or linke candidate,making it easier for them to get 3 seats and in the process of giving their second vote to another party could thus double the value of their vote) the problem is particularly visible in right-wing laender, where many voters have a tendency to give their first vote to the Christian Democrat or CDU candidate and their second vote to the Liberal party list of the FDP. This often led to Ueberhangmandate, as the CDU got more candidates elected in the direct first vote than they were allowed to have by allocating the number of indirect mandates over the states.

    No fewer than 22 seats of the 40 seat majority of CDU and FDP are the mathematical result of Ueberhangmandate.

    Over the years, electoral analysts noticed that the possiblity of Ueberhangmandate often led to the Negative Vote Weight phenomenon: the more second votes the biggest party got, the fewer seats it got in the Bundestag! If in 2009, 5% of the 14% of the voters of the FDP had in fact voted CDU (rather than to the FDP, which many did in fear that the natural ally of the CDU would strand under the 5% threshold), the total vote for the present coalition would have been exactly the same, but their number of seats would have been lower by 20. The CDU would have lost almost all its Ueberhangmandate. More votes for the CDU = fewer seats.

    http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FNegatives_Stimmgewicht_bei_Wahlen%23cite_note-2

    The German Supreme court in 2008 ruled negative vote weight unconstitutional. In September 2011, CDU and FDP voted a new seat allocation scheme that almost eliminates negative weight, but conserves the Ueberhangmandate. The entire opposition voted against and is now suing before the Supreme Court. Present opinion polls give the CDU 37%, but the FDP at only 4% (lower than the threshold), with the liberal place in the Bundestag going to the Pirate Party.

    In United States electoral studies, the phenomenon is known as the Alabama Paradox.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_paradox#Alabama_paradox