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
