Wednesday, July 29, 2020

How the President is Actually Elected, and Where You Can Vote for Third Party Presidential Candidates in 2020

     Incumbent president Donald Trump of the Republican Party will almost certainly be his party's nominee for the presidency in 2020. The Republican Party Convention hasn't been held yet, but that's almost certain to be the case, as it has been decades (28 years) since an incumbent Republican president has faced a significant challenge during a re-election campaign.
     The Democratic Party, and presumptive nominee Joe Biden, face a similar situation. However, it's remotely possible that Biden could fail to secure enough delegates on the first round, which could result in the nomination of Bernie Sanders.
     Still, that the Democratic Party will nominate Biden, and the Republican Party will nominate Trump, seems inevitable.

     Many Americans are upset that the president is not elected democratically, and that the candidate with the most votes does not always win, and that this "Electoral College upset" has been the case more and more often over the last twenty years.
     In a recent interview for an internet podcast, Ralph Nader, the Green Party's presidential nominee in 2000 and 2004, made reference to the Electoral College, in a manner which, to me, suggests that he does not understand how it works. In the interview, Nader was referring to either the 2016 presidential election, or else all elections in which the Electoral College elected a candidate who did not win the popular vote. Nader said something like "the Electoral College kicked in" because the winner of the popular vote didn't win the majority of votes in enough states to become president.
     I suspect that Nader is either confused, doesn't fully understand the process, and/or has been distracted by his desire to build support for the Interstate Popular Vote Compact, to accurately portray how, and when, and under what circumstances, the Electoral College works. (Note: The Interstate Popular Vote Compact is a compact between states which desire to make it legally binding upon Electoral College electors that they must support whichever candidate received a majority of votes in each state.)
     By saying "the Electoral College kicked in" after the "popular vote winner" didn't win enough states, Nader is - intentionally or not - misleading voters into thinking that the Electoral College doesn't always meet, and that it only meets when the "popular vote winner" doesn't win enough states.
     Whether Nader understands how the president is elected or not, there is no such thing as a "popular vote winner" of the presidency. Or, at least, there is, if you want to measure things that way. But as far as constitutional law - the framework for our government, which outlines the structure of our elections - is concerned, the "popular vote winner" does not matter, and for all intents and purposes, does not exist. The Electoral College elects the president, not the people.
     If there were such a thing as a "popular vote winner", then Hillary Clinton would be President of the United States right now, or she would be some sort of bizarre co-president. Donald Trump was inaugurated on January 20th, 2017, because he won the Electoral College. The Electoral College that meets every four years - in early December, about a month after the election - regardless of who wins "the popular vote"
     I'm not saying that things have to be this way, I'm simply saying that this is currently how the president is elected. We can amend the Constitution to change that process any time we want; any time we get enough public support to change presidential elections in some particular way. That will require time, effort, coalition-building, and political willpower. But if a significant majority of the people think that it's acceptable for the president to be elected by a narrow majority, or a narrow plurality, of popular votes, then that's fine; it just requires a constitutional amendment before presidential elections can be run that way.
     Just keep in mind that, if the popular vote elects the president, we will have a brand new problem (which is just the same old problem in disguise): the problem of pluralities. If four people run for president, and each receives 40%, 30%, 20%, and 10% (as was the case in the election of 1860), then the candidate who won 40% will become president without receiving a majority of the popular vote. And that, in its own way, is just as anti-majoritarian as the way the Electoral College allows states to override the majority. Which leaves us back at square one.


     Fortunately, thanks to Amendment XII to the U.S. Constitution, there is a process which allows a "third party" or "independent" presidential candidate to win the office, if both Biden and Trump fail to capture the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.
     It is possible for a “third party” candidate to stop both Biden and Trump from getting the 270 electoral votes necessary to win the presidency, forcing a second round of voting in which each state would have one vote and could choose from among the top three electoral college vote-getters.
     We shouldn't even be calling these parties “third parties”, because of how many American voters keep insisting “third parties can't win”. “Third parties can't win”? Not with that attitude, they can't! Third parties can't win if you won't vote for them.
     Calling the Libertarian Party and Green Party “third parties” suggests that they're third-rate, or not viable. That is not the case. The proper term is “minor party”, meaning a party that has not yet received 5% of popular support in a previous election in any given area. If a party has ever gotten more than 5% of the vote in any county in a state, then it is considered a major party in that state.
     We cannot say that we have fair and open elections, if we don't allow a third, a fourth, and a fifth voice into the presidential debates (which are now controlled by the Commission on Presidential Debates, made up of the former heads of the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee).
     We need more options.

     Luckily, there is an even easier way to elect a Libertarian, a Green, a socialist, a Constitution Party candidate, etc., to the White House. Twelfth Amendment tactics are not necessary! It's simpler than you might think.
     All that a “third party” candidate for president has to do to win the presidency, is receive a majority of the votes in about 25 or 30 of the states in which they've achieved ballot access. That's it!
     And guess what: It's already possible for the Libertarian Party and the Green Party to win, because each of them has achieved ballot access in more than 30 states! Moreover, each the L.P. and G.P. will probably achieve ballot access in somewhere between 45 and 50 states between now and Election Day (November 3rd, 2020), as they have done during the last several presidential elections.
     So there's still hope! If a Green or a Libertarian wins a clear majority in more than half of the states, or in about 20 of the higher-population states, then as long as the electors in the electoral college respect the majority's vote, that candidate will be elected president by the Electoral College.

     Below are two maps which show the states where American voters will be able to choose the Libertarian nominee (Jo Jorgensen) and the Green nominee (Howie Hawkins) for president at the ballot on November 3rd, 2020.








The Libertarian Party presidential nominee
had ballot access in 36 states and the District of Columbia
as of the last week of July 2020.


Source:







The Green Party presidential nominee
had ballot access in 25 states and the District of Columbia
as of the last week of July 2020.




Green = states in which Green Party presidential nominee Howie Hawkins will be on the ballot

Red = states in which the Green Party is still petitioning to get on the  ballot

Orange = states in which Howie Hawkins will be a write-in candidate


Sources: Green Party website




This information is presumed accurate as of the last week of July 2020.
.






     To be clear: I stated above that if a candidate receives the majority votes in enough states, then that person will probably become president. That is, if the Electoral College voters abide by that decision. They don't have to.

     You see, each state is allowed to run its presidential election the way it prefers, and to allocate its Electoral College votes in any manner it pleases. That includes each state's right to decide whether to allow, or else punish and impose a fine upon, “protest votes” in the Electoral College. Electors who cast such “protest votes” are called “faithless electors” (but only if they go back on their pledge to support a given candidate).
     There are currently 18 states which do not impose any fine or punishment upon faithless electors: Idaho, Utah, South Dakota, Kansas, Texas, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Illinois Kentucky, Georgia, West Virginia, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. In all other states, state laws may either require a delegate to keep his pledge, or provide for the replacement of a delegate who becomes a faithless elector, or provide for a fine to be imposed upon the elector for attempting to break his pledge.
     What this means is that, theoretically, Electoral College electors in all of those 18 states could decide that they want to “sabotage” the vote, by choosing some candidate who didn't win the majority in their respective states, and they couldn't get punished. That candidate would have to receive a majority of votes in only a couple states besides those 18, to win enough Electoral College votes to win the presidency. Such a candidate could pass 270 votes by adding together their “legitimate” votes to their so-called “illegitimate” - but nonetheless legal - faithless elector votes.
     And voilà! There's yet another way a third party candidate could become president.

     The power of states and the Electoral College, are not the only “threats” to the “majority popular vote” method which many desire for electing the president. The power of faithless electors to vote for a candidate who did not win the majority in that delegate's state, could, in fact, be perceived as a threat to both the “popular vote” and the “states' rights” approaches.
     But when both major party candidates are corrupt, we have to consider radical approaches, such as refraining from punishing faithless electors who refuse to cast their vote for someone they don't believe is competent to assume the office of the presidency (the highest executive office in the land).      And we have to consider radical approaches such as electing a “third party” candidate to the White House.

     Here are two maps about faithless electors. The first shows which states faithless electors can and cannot break their pledges without being punished. The second shows that five other candidates received Electoral College votes in 2016; in addition to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.



Map showing the legality of faithless electors





2016 Electoral College results,
showing that seven candidates
won Electoral College votes, not two




     Has anybody ever seen this map before? Most Americans haven't.
     How is this possible, when all we saw on CNN and FOX and MSNBC were red and blue maps? They were reporting the popular votes in each state. The Electoral College - where the president is actually elected - met a full month later, and some electors were free to pick people who weren't even running. That's the truth!
     The major media networks don't tell us this, because 1) they think it's too complicated for the average voter to understand; 2) it's time-consuming to explain; and 3) they don't want to remind American voters that they're not the actual people who pick the president, we actually elect people who elect the president.





     All of this begs the question: How many of us can say that we were taught the whole truth, in school, about how the president is elected in this country? How many of us knew that the people don't elect the president; they elect people who elect the president? That the Electoral College meets every four years, regardless of what happens with the popular vote?
     How long will this country last, if our government is so complicated, that we can't even teach our children how it works, because it doesn't work?

     If enough Americans who can't stand Biden or Trump, can choose either Jorgensen or Hawkins or some other candidate to rally around, then it will be possible for that candidate to win the 30-45% of the popular vote which will be necessary to receive in most states, to pull off a clear victory. 
     That will be especially easy to do, if either Jorgensen, Hawkins, or some other candidate, garners much more public support than all of the other third party candidates, and blows their own competition for "lead third party candidate" out of the water.
     I have my own opinion about whom that candidate should be, but it is ultimately up to the public.
     One way or another, one of the candidates opposing both Biden and Trump must become president, or corruption will continue to reign, and the republic will risk being lost forever.
     This may be our last chance.

     Please visit thegreenpapers.com to find the full list of candidates running in races in your area (including the president).
     Research Libertarian Party nominee Jo Jorgensen, Green Party nominee Howie Hawkins, Party for Socialism and Liberation nominee Gloria LaRiva, Constitution Party nominee Don Blankenship, Prohibition Party nominee Phil Collins, independent candidates Vermin Supreme and Kanye West.
     Find out whether each of them will be on the ballot in your state, and then go to the polls on November 3rd, 2020 and vote your conscience. As former Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson has said, "The only wasted vote is a vote for a candidate you don't believe in."





Addendum (added on August 6th, 2020):

     On Monday, July 6th, 2020, N.P.R. reported that the United States Supreme Court upheld state laws that punish faithless electors (which are also known as Hamilton electors, named after Alexander Hamilton).

     However, the fact that the court made this decision, does not mean that states must pass laws that punish faithless electors.

     It is also important to note that, according to Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, each state legislature determines the manner in which delegates are selected and appointed:

     “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, [emphasis mine] 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.”







Written and Published on July 30th, 2020
Updated on July 31st, 2020
Addendum Added on August 6th, 2020

1 comment:

  1. Actually in most states the party only need a plurality, not a majority, of the votes cast to win all of that state's electoral votes.

    ReplyDelete

Summary of My Analysis Regarding Who Carried Out the Attacks of September 11th, 2001, and Their Ties to Jeffrey Epstein

     I agree with Webster Tarpley's analysis; that the U.S., U.K., Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan collaborated to carry-out the 9/11...