Throughout the winter and spring, supporters of defeated libertarian extremist Rep. Ron Paul were fond of claiming that they had the power to either disrupt the Republican National Convention or generate enough defections in November to sabotage the mainstream GOP’s efforts to win back the presidency. Though the Paulbots managed to amuse some bored members of the press corps at the Tampa convention, their attempts to gain attention barely deserved to be called a distraction. Their threats about affecting the vote in the general election appear to be even emptier as polling showed that much of Paul’s limited support came from Democrats crossing over to participate in GOP primaries and caucuses. However, it appears that the libertarian fringe could actually materially affect the outcome in a way that no one seems to have foreseen.
As the Associated Press reports today, three of the Republicans who will become members of the Electoral College should Mitt Romney win their states are now saying they will refuse to vote for the Republican. All three are Paul backers who somehow managed to be appointed to this usually symbolic post but who have the power to thwart the will of the voters if that is their pleasure. Two are from potential tossup states, Iowa and Nevada. Another is from Texas, a state certain to go Republican this fall. All profess to be not merely disgusted with Romney’s relatively moderate stands on the issues but angry with some of the petty slights dealt out to Paul delegates in Tampa. Together, they could deprive Romney of a majority should the election turn out to be a nail-biter. If this happens, those in the GOP leadership who insisted on net letting Paul’s name be placed in nomination or in counting the votes cast for him will rue their decisions.
Faithless electors are not unknown in American history, and approximately half of the states have laws prohibiting electors from voting for anyone but the choice of the voters. But as the AP points out, Nevada’s law carries no punishment, meaning that one of the GOP electors who has said he’ll vote for Ron Paul rather than Romney could probably do so with impunity.
Other Paul supporters who have managed to become potential members of the Electoral College promise they’ll defect only if it won’t influence the outcome of the election. Thus if Romney exceeds or falls short of the 270-vote majority he needs, there may be more than three votes for Paul or abstentions.
This possibility will raise the usual objections to the Electoral College as an institution. The faithless electors are right that the founders of the republic did intend them to act as a deliberative body of elites. Yet the College persists because changing it would alter the balance of power between the states and because it is difficult to shuck tradition. It was bad enough when it produced, as it did in 2000, an outcome that did not match the popular vote. But should faithless electors thwart the will of individual states, it will be difficult to refute the inevitable calls for change that will ensue.
But if Paul supporters didn’t like the top-down rules that were imposed on the RNC to silence them, this will only serve to motivate both parties to create regulations that will be even more draconian attempts to weed out dissidents from positions of influence. Any state Republican party, such as the one in Nevada, that allowed its electors to be chosen by the Paul faction will be likely to do everything to ensure that this never happens again.
The odds are, either Romney or President Obama will wind up getting more than 273 votes, making the potential Paul protest merely a matter of symbolism. But if, as is entirely possible, the outcome does come down to a couple of Electoral votes, the focus on these individuals will be intense. If they manage to deadlock the College and send the decision to Congress — something that last happened in 1824 — it will turn the election into more of a circus than the 2000 debacle in Florida.
" If this happens, those in the GOP leadership who insisted on net letting Paul’s name be placed in nomination or in counting the votes cast for him will rue their decisions" n nIs "net" a typo for "not"?
Sick, sick, sick. I am very much ashamed of our "Democracy', which isn't one. Apparently we ARE so incredibly stupid as a people to continue to allow this disgraceful possibility to continue. How's Canada as a place to live? Cold, I know.
Where were you in 2000? I hope supporting a total Fla. recount.
Confused as usual. Or is it depraved. One situation has NOTHING to do with the other.
Unlike Gore I was supporting a total FL recount.
To recapitulate. Several press organizations actually *did a Fla recount* of chads and Bush won.
Well, Canada has dealt very well its fiscal crisis in recent years.
A slow news day, or what? There are lot of things to worry about in the run up to election. It's very important that Romney win and we all should focus on making it happen. This little tidbit is just kind of strange and a distraction.
Well, Romney never directly challenged Ron Paul head on, but played it cute.
What an idiotic post. First, you make fun of any Paul supporter, then try to marginalize all Paul supporters and delegates, and then you whine about how the, "unfaithful Paulbots", will cost Romney? nWell, idiot, with support from you and your ilk, Mitt will lose. nAnd for this, I hope you will turn that blaming-finger onto yourself. nHow ridiculous are you Mitt-Bots?
Presidential elections don't have to (even possibly) be this way. n nThe National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). n nEvery vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions. n nWhen the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC. n nThe bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action. n nIn Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win. n nThe bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes – 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect. n nNationalPopularVote nFollow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc n
I am tired of this disrespect for the Electoral college. It was designed to be part of the division of power in the American system. It was designed to prevent "parties" at the center from running the people. For this reason that Electors may not be Senators or Congressman . I am a Republican Elector for Minnesota and will be voting for Romney. I am requesting Mitt Romney's birth certificate because it is the duty of electors to concern themselves with eligibility issues. A "faithless" elector would one who did not perform this task for the party. The Democratic Party of 2008 was faithless and did nothing to prove Obama's eligibility and hence the many lawsuits. The Republican party was also faithless in 2008.The lawsuits have failed by the way not because Obama has proven his status as eligible but rather because the lawsuits were not initiated by electors. It is electors of the Electoral College who have standing to pursue these lawsuits. They will be most likely forthcoming in 2012 if all parties do not fully prove their candidates to be eligible.
You have just proven that the Electoral College is a sham that spits in the face of the people's voices and votes. Minnesota is almost for sure going to have a majority vote for Obama over Romney. Are you telling me that you are going to ignore the voice of the people, and only think about your own desire? Cause if so, you sir are making the ultimate insult to our country. Your logic is also so laughably backwards also. Parties DO run the people. That is what this two party system, perpetrated by this bullshit electoral collage has done. It encourages the party galvanization and divisive ideological purity that results in a deadlocked government that can't get shit done, because there is a refusal for any amount of compromise. The only "division" of power the electoral collage has is the division of power from the people to have their voices shape this country. The people spoke and voted for Al Gore in 2000. He received over 500,000 more votes than Bush did, and yet he lost. How is that the voice of the people? How is that a democracy? The Electroal Collage is a disgrace and insult to the voice of the people, and it deserves NO respect.
Actually, Romney is going to suffer Gore's fate in 2000. Romney is already ahead in the popular vote, but he is likely going to lose Ohio and the electoral vote. So basically if there was a national popular vote, Romney would win. The irony is it has been the GOP mostly opposing a national popular vote, but they would win now in 2012 if there was one!