This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is generally good although the confused nature of the subject itself makes it hard to be definitive. A few questions:
Timrollpickering ( talk) 02:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
This is a heads up: The president of the United States just raised the possibility of using this to steal the election. In 40 days and 40 nights (give or take), this article may have to be revised on a constant basis. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 15:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
The article currently says, in WP's editorial voice, in the Certificate of final determination section: .. .Section 4 (now 3 U.S.C. § 15) prohibits Congress from ...
. Regardless of the topical details of the article at that point, I thought that it was a pretty well settled matter that no Congress can constrain action by a future Congress or, said another way, that any sitting Congress is free to ignore constraints placed upon it by laws passed by previous Congresses. My understanding or misunderstanding about that doesn't matter, but I don't think that a pronouncement involving that should appear in the article without citing a supporting source. I've placed a {{
discuss}} tag pointing to this talk page section in the article at that point.
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
The section on controversies states in part: "The provision applies if the state has provided, "by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors" – that is, through laws enacted before Election Day...."
On what basis does the writer equate Election Day to the day fixed for appointment of the electors? Please provide a reference. In fact, no state has this rule, and common sense dictates that you can only appoint electors a few days after Election Day.
Someone needs to look into this and change the text. Sooku ( talk) 19:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the section at the bottom titled "Constitutionality" should be removed. Constitutionality is ultimately decided by the Supreme Court and since the Supreme Court has never taken up a case challenging the Act any section in regards to this is purely speculation. If the section was changed to "Controversy" as is used by many other articles it would be appropriate and more could be written to expand that stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBigRedTank ( talk • contribs) 03:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I added a quote from the reference in this section outlining the issues regarding constitutionality. 3 USC 15, the counting procedure, hasn't been tested in the Supreme Court. I think many people reading it for the first time would be shocked if they manage to decode it. According to the reference the research on this Act is very thin in addition to the lack of Supreme Court decisions. Many people must be wondering what is the underlying authority for the process and if it is legit or just an historical artifact. I felt a little more background could be useful, and the caption for the section invited it. Bluepost22 ( talk) 21:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Reading the article, I think the lead would concentrate on the following, with proposed paragraphs in parentheses.
Things that seem less notable:
Thoughts?
Chris vLS ( talk) 21:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to open a discussion on the characterization of the alternate 2020 electors mentioned in the Hawaii section. @ Wtmitchell: objected to the description of the electors' certificates as "Counterfeit". I personally don't prefer the word "counterfeit" but I think it's important to include that these electors have no legal authority and weren't authorized by anyone (not governors, not officials, not state legislatures). I can cite more sources corroborating this if you'd like. Please let me know your thoughts. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) ( talk) 17:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Alternate proposal. I don't think counterfeit is correct, as a counterfeit is a replica. The alternative slates are rivals, claiming legitimacy, which is different. A counterfeit prince is one who says, 'No, I'm the real Prince Harry, he's an imposter" as opposed to a prince who claims "I'm the previously unknown Prince George, and I come before Harry in the line of succession." Similarly, "improper vote" seems too credulous. WP:RS sources -- and the ECA -- treat these certificates as having the legal force of a scribble on a cocktail napkin. Sorting this out is what the Act is for, so I think a little more coverage is warranted. What about the following:
Thoughts? pinging: @ Wtmitchell: @ Herbfur: @ Arglebargle79: Chris vLS ( talk) 21:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
The Newsweek magazine is dominated by Nazi flags. I had to stare at it for a long time before I could see what it had to do with the article. And the quality is not great. Thoughts? Anyone know how to find public domain images of Nixon, Gore, Quayle presiding? 2600:1700:9582:2040:209C:5B6E:9F58:3E2 ( talk) 18:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I wanted to explain my citation for the sentence
I cited the National Review article, because it says:
The "final determination" Under the Act is what Bush v. Gore refers to as the "safe harbor." So I take point 2 above to mean that the alternate electors are not the ones named in point 3. I propose a better sentence:
@ Wtmitchell:... thoughts? Chris vLS ( talk) 00:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Lawprofessor1957 proposed adding the following text. [5] It was reverted by User:Zoozaz1. [6] I support the reversion and would like to memorialize why here and if there is not a consensus, to find it here.
First, of course, there are no citations. But one could certainly find citations that summarize the claims made by the so-called alternate electors.
More importantly, I think the reversion was correct because, in every sentence, the proposed text describes the "states" or the "legislatures" making these claims or giving some kind of blessing to these alternate electors. This is not true, and our sources flatly say so. The National Review -- a conservative journal -- article enumerates how none of the alternate slates have been appointed by their legislatures. Some have been flatly disavowed by the legislature's leaders. Some were even denied entry into the building. To quote the NR article:
It would be a HUGE deal if a state legislature took an official act blessing these alternate slates. If it were true, I think it would be easy to find a source. Until then, I think the current text is fine. @ Wtmitchell: @ Lawprofessor1957: @ Zoozaz1: @ Arglebargle79: Thoughts? Chris vLS ( talk) 00:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Wtmitchell:@ Arglebargle79:I'm sure you two have now heard what happened with the Counting of Electoral Votes the other day. I hope you both are safe and well. I want to bring up the argument that Arglebargle79 brought up on New Year's Day. Arglebargle79 argued that there wouldn't be multiple returns introduced in the count because the National Archives' website with the electoral vote certificates showed only one certificate of electoral vote. During the Count, each state only had one slate of electors introduced, with no "alternate electors". I propose that we make this a precedent, to use the National Archives' listing of electoral vote certificates to determine what electors are in the count and whether multiple returns exist. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) ( talk) 15:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
First, I want to expose my bias. I voted for Biden, and I think he is the properly elected president. Now onto my effort to improve the article. I would argue that the weakest part of this article is how it deals with multiple slates. I know what happened in 1876, but what are multiple slates in the modern context, or even in the post-1887 context? Some might immediately say Hawaii 1960, but I disagree. Specifically, the Electoral Count Act says "in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed...". Clearly this is not Hawaii, since in 1960 there was one consistent state authority that submitted one slate before safe harbor day and then the corrected slate later. The state authority was consistent throughout. So what is dual state authorities in the modern context? Is it a repeat of the 1876 situation in Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina? Or is it something different? Could there ever truly be multiple slates submitted in the modern context? To use the current election as an example, could Republican state legislators in say Arizona declare themselves to be the proper state authority (due to claimed election irregularities), and thus submit an alternate slate that they claim is certified by the state (i.e. themselves)? I have been searching for sources that would answer these questions, but I have not been very successful. The best I can figure out is that the current Electoral College Act does indeed envision a repeat of 1876 when it talks about multiple slates. This is important because, in the case of multiple slates, if the two houses of Congress disagree, then the electoral votes for that state are thrown out. Thus a single house of Congress (e.g. the Senate) can conceivably take enough electoral votes away from the winner to force a contingent election and potentially overturn the winner of the election. -- Westwind273 ( talk) 15:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I think the biggest improvement to the article that could be made would be to clarify what the Electoral Count Act means when it says "two or more of such State authorities". Herbfur postulates that those "two authorities" could be the governor and the legislature. I suspect that the writers of the Electoral Count Act had the 1876 situation in mind. In Louisiana, Stephen Packard (Republican) and Francis Nichols (Democrat) both claimed to be the duly elected governor. Packard certified the Republican electors and Nichols certified the Democratic electors. The situation was the same in South Carolina, where Daniel Chamberlain (Republican) and Wade Hampton (Democrat) both claimed to be governor, and two slates were sent to the Congress. A similar situation occurred in Florida, where the sitting Republican governor signed the Republican slate, and the state attorney-general and newly elected Democratic governor signed the Democratic slate. Both claimed to be the properly certified slate of electors from Florida. Perhaps "two or more such State authorities" can only arise when there are two people who both claim to be governor. I would really like to know the answer to this question, and I think an explanation of this would add a lot to the article. -- Westwind273 ( talk) 05:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
[T]here is a point beyond which you can not bind the human conscience. . . . A decision of the Supreme Court of the United States might be made as a result of bribery, yet there is no power in the country that can set it aside; that is the supreme tribunal. . . . So [Congress] may vote down the voice of the State’s electors, . . . and after the act has been done the power to revoke it, even the power to question it, has passed beyond human control.
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Counting of the electoral votes. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 7#Counting of the electoral votes until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Bagumba ( talk) 11:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
In the introductory text at the beginning of the article we read "Both houses can overrule the Vice President's decision to include or exclude votes and, under the Act, even if the chambers disagree, the governor's certification, not the Vice President, breaks the tie."
The "even if" surely means "if." We are left with a puzzlement, with or without the "even." The tie is over the question of whether to accept the votes certified by a governor.
I'm afraid this needs work, and I'm not able to do it.
David Lloyd-Jones ( talk) 06:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I propose merging Certificate of ascertainment into Electoral Count Act. I think the content in the former can easily be explained in the context of the latter, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in the latter. It is duplicative with the destination article's subsection and source article having the same scope, and they have very significant overlap. The page is also pretty short and is unlikely to be expanded further. The source page also lacks context and requires the background material from the destination page in order for readers to understand it. Moreover, the other certificates during the ascertainment process don't have articles of their own so this page shouldn't be an exception. I created a page for the 'certificate of vote' a while ago, and that also got merged into another article. [1]. All of the reasons I have listed are according to WP:MERGEREASON sufficient to warrant a merge. @ Reywas92 and DividedFrame:, since DividedFrame reversed Reywas92's bold merger, I suggest you both talk it out here. ( talk) 17:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
main article|
Certificate of ascertainment}}
in the relevant section, and I note that there appear to be some conflicts between info in the CofA article and the info in that section.
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)This edit caught my eye and caused me to take a look at that paragraph. As edited to remove an error, it reads:
I haven't researched details, but that doesn't bring to mind what I remember seeing on coverage at the time. I did a quick google and saw this article headed, "Capitol Police ordered not to use tear gas canisters during Jan. 6 riot, despite them being used on Lafayette Park protesters last June ", so I'm wondering about the unsupported assertion in wikivoice re gas masks. Also, I don't remember an armed standoff or anything as actively confrontational as the impression I get from reading that paragraph. Perhaps I misremember, but it seems to me that the rhetoric there needs to be toned down a lot. That paragraph is unsupported and needs reliable supporting sourcing. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
(added) On reflection, this and other nearby material seems to have little or no direct relation to the topic of this article. I've removed if here. Please discuss this to arrive at an editorial consensus about how this material is to be treated here before re-adding it to the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Here, I have reverted what I take to be a WP:BOLD (re)insertion of matrial about the 2020 election which, in my opinion, does not have due topical weight for coverage in this article. I've also done some rewording in order to accomodate this removal.
The material I have removed is located in the article as follows:
The removed material involves objections raised to electoral votes of two states, information abut the background leading up to the objections, vote counts in consideration of the objections, and some details about events following the voting. I believe that these details do not have due weight for coverage by this article. I have linked the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election article, where these details might have due weight for coverage, as {{ main article}} for the 2020 subsection. I suggest comparison of the level of detail involved here with the level of detail for elections in prior years which are also covered here. Please engage in a WP:BRD discussion here regarding this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
The Senate has, at last, introduced a replacement for the Act. So I humbly suggest that we change the title of the article to "The electoral count act of 1887" as soon as it is passed. Notwisconsin ( talk) 13:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I want to (re)raise the issue regarding what happens when electoral votes are rejected and how this is discussed in the article at Electoral Count Act#Majority of electors. I am interested for input as to why we present the issue as being so unsettled. Certainly, any Congress is free from any precedent of a prior Congress, but to me, historical precedent is pretty clear and makes sense logically, so we should present it that way, then discuss how and why certain sources disagree. I believe United_States_Electoral_College#Historical_objections_and_rejections is complete, such that the only elections where not all electoral votes were counted by Congress were 1864 and 1872. In 1864, all electoral votes from Louisiana and Tennessee (all votes for Lincoln) were not counted, reducing both Lincoln's total (the numerator) and the total number of electors appointed (the denominator) by 17. In 1872, all electoral votes from Louisiana and Arkansas (all votes for Grant) were not counted, reducing both Grant's total (the numerator) and the total number of electors appointed (the denominator) by 14. Also in 1872, after Horace Greeley's death, the 3 presidential votes for the deceased Greeley were not counted, but the vice-presidential votes from those 3 electors were counted, thus the total number of presidential electoral votes counted was reduced by 3, but the total number of electors appointed (the denominator) was unchanged. So, from this we can conclude there are two scenarios regarding the rejection of electoral votes by Congress: 1) there is an issue with the appointment of one or more electors (e.g. election "irregularities", election fraud, or overall illegitimacy of the election in a state) that causes Congress to reject the validity of the electors themselves, which logically decreases both the numerator and the denominator, making it as if the electors were never appointed and thereby reducing the number of votes needed to achieve a majority, and 2) there is an issue with the votes of one or more electors (e.g. voting for a deceased person) that causes Congress to reject the validity of specific electoral votes of legitimately appointed electors, causing the votes deemed invalid to be discarded but with no change to the total number of electors (or the number of votes needed for a majority).
In regard to 2020, through the lens of the above,
2021 United States Electoral College vote count#False electors sent by Trump Campaign to challenge real electors in seven states and apparently numerous
reliable sources miss the point. The statement If the results from those seven states had been rejected, neither candidate would have had the 270 votes required in the Electoral College, and the House would have had to decide the election
is arguably (under the above logic and historical precedent) incorrect. If the electors from the 7 states in the
Eastman memos were thrown out due to "election fraud" or the like, akin to Louisiana and Arkansas in 1872, Trump would have 232 votes and Biden would have 222 votes out of a total of 454, of which a majority is 228, and Trump would win outright with no contingent election being triggered. In fact, tossing out New Mexico's electors is not needed; the discarding of electors from the 6 states of the
Ellis memos is the minimum number of states required to make Trump the winner (Trump's 232 to Biden's 227 out of a total of 459, of which a majority is 230). 270 is not some magical, unchanging number, as unfortunately presented by the media, but if it were, only tossing out the 3 closest states (AZ, GA, PA) would have been required. But it makes no sense that Congress could conclude these Biden electors were indeed appointed, keeping the total at 270, but that something is somehow wrong with their votes. Even in a corrupt Constitutional scheme to change an election outcome, you can't have it both ways: if you're concluding there was massive election fraud and the wrong electors were appointed, you can't ratify their appointment while at the same time discounting their votes just to make the math come out in your favor. So for the scheme to work, 6 states would need to be rejected, not 3, and in no scenario was the goal to force a contingent election. Unfortunately, the press and pundits and even Constitutional experts like
Jamie Raskin seem to have gotten this wrong at times. What Eastman and others was proposing was ultimately illegal due to their corrupt intent, but their scenario at least was based on correct Constitutional logic, and fortunately required Congress to reject a whopping 6 states worth of electoral votes.
Tangentially, I feel like the Pence card theory is also presented incorrectly. Why is it not plausible Constitutional hardball that Pence could decide to open the returns from "fake" electors (Republican slates of electors, who were not ultimately appointed) instead of the real ones? Setting aside whether this action is ultimately illegal (and the fact that doing so would obviously be ethically and morally wrong), it's certainly within his Constitutional discretion to "open the certificates" to attempt it (logically, even ceremonial or ministerial roles must have some discretion, it's just that invoking discretion may lead to consequences). What everyone seems to be missing, in my view, is not that Pence couldn't attempt it, it's that it wouldn't work because a majority of both houses of Congress would surely reject Pence's attempt to count the illegitimate votes. The problem with the Pence card theory, then, is not that the VP has no power, it's that the minority view would need to prevail that Congress has no ability to challenge votes opened by the VP, and only must Constitutionally be present so that they may go right into a contingent election if required, meaning that a single officer of the United States could indeed choose the president, which is certainly not what the Framers intended. In the Framer's era, perhaps it was unlikely the VP would know the outcome in each state before hand, and the VP was truly counting the votes and not simply ceremonially ratifying a known outcome, meaning that they could never have surmised a VP attempting to strategically alter the vote count to reach a different outcome. Going further, I suppose Pence could have refused to open certificates of votes, stalling the vote count (a goal of the rioters). Had this persisted, no contingent election could put Trump in office, as that requires the count to be finished (and no candidate having a majority); instead presumably the Speaker of the House would become Acting president on January 20th under this (not very well thought out) scenario.
Anyway, is anyone else troubled by how these issues are presented in the relevant enwiki articles, or have any insights? For lack of a better characterization, because these ideas are so appalling and historically unprecedented, it seems like many are just jumping to the (correct) conclusion that these schemes are illegal and not really thinking through the details as to what has basis in the Constitution and where the concepts actually go astray. Mdewman6 ( talk) 01:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
tl;dr Historical precedent regarding whether or not the total number of electors appointed is changed when electoral votes are rejected is clear and logical, so why does Electoral Count Act#Majority of electors present it as such an open question? Consequently, 2021 United States Electoral College vote count#False electors sent by Trump Campaign to challenge real electors in seven states and some reliable sources seem to misunderstand how Eastman's and other's scheme would logically have played out; a contingent election would not have occurred, instead the goal was to elect Trump outright by throwing out the electors from the 6 (or 7) closest states that voted for Biden, giving Trump a majority of the remaining electors. Mdewman6 ( talk) 02:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I've split off a Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 article, which needs expansion. I think it's best to restrict this article to the now-historical version of the bill, and keep substantive discussion of the new rules in the new article, since if we mix up the old and new provisions in one article it will become confusing. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 06:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is generally good although the confused nature of the subject itself makes it hard to be definitive. A few questions:
Timrollpickering ( talk) 02:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
This is a heads up: The president of the United States just raised the possibility of using this to steal the election. In 40 days and 40 nights (give or take), this article may have to be revised on a constant basis. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 15:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
The article currently says, in WP's editorial voice, in the Certificate of final determination section: .. .Section 4 (now 3 U.S.C. § 15) prohibits Congress from ...
. Regardless of the topical details of the article at that point, I thought that it was a pretty well settled matter that no Congress can constrain action by a future Congress or, said another way, that any sitting Congress is free to ignore constraints placed upon it by laws passed by previous Congresses. My understanding or misunderstanding about that doesn't matter, but I don't think that a pronouncement involving that should appear in the article without citing a supporting source. I've placed a {{
discuss}} tag pointing to this talk page section in the article at that point.
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
The section on controversies states in part: "The provision applies if the state has provided, "by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors" – that is, through laws enacted before Election Day...."
On what basis does the writer equate Election Day to the day fixed for appointment of the electors? Please provide a reference. In fact, no state has this rule, and common sense dictates that you can only appoint electors a few days after Election Day.
Someone needs to look into this and change the text. Sooku ( talk) 19:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the section at the bottom titled "Constitutionality" should be removed. Constitutionality is ultimately decided by the Supreme Court and since the Supreme Court has never taken up a case challenging the Act any section in regards to this is purely speculation. If the section was changed to "Controversy" as is used by many other articles it would be appropriate and more could be written to expand that stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBigRedTank ( talk • contribs) 03:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I added a quote from the reference in this section outlining the issues regarding constitutionality. 3 USC 15, the counting procedure, hasn't been tested in the Supreme Court. I think many people reading it for the first time would be shocked if they manage to decode it. According to the reference the research on this Act is very thin in addition to the lack of Supreme Court decisions. Many people must be wondering what is the underlying authority for the process and if it is legit or just an historical artifact. I felt a little more background could be useful, and the caption for the section invited it. Bluepost22 ( talk) 21:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Reading the article, I think the lead would concentrate on the following, with proposed paragraphs in parentheses.
Things that seem less notable:
Thoughts?
Chris vLS ( talk) 21:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to open a discussion on the characterization of the alternate 2020 electors mentioned in the Hawaii section. @ Wtmitchell: objected to the description of the electors' certificates as "Counterfeit". I personally don't prefer the word "counterfeit" but I think it's important to include that these electors have no legal authority and weren't authorized by anyone (not governors, not officials, not state legislatures). I can cite more sources corroborating this if you'd like. Please let me know your thoughts. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) ( talk) 17:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Alternate proposal. I don't think counterfeit is correct, as a counterfeit is a replica. The alternative slates are rivals, claiming legitimacy, which is different. A counterfeit prince is one who says, 'No, I'm the real Prince Harry, he's an imposter" as opposed to a prince who claims "I'm the previously unknown Prince George, and I come before Harry in the line of succession." Similarly, "improper vote" seems too credulous. WP:RS sources -- and the ECA -- treat these certificates as having the legal force of a scribble on a cocktail napkin. Sorting this out is what the Act is for, so I think a little more coverage is warranted. What about the following:
Thoughts? pinging: @ Wtmitchell: @ Herbfur: @ Arglebargle79: Chris vLS ( talk) 21:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
The Newsweek magazine is dominated by Nazi flags. I had to stare at it for a long time before I could see what it had to do with the article. And the quality is not great. Thoughts? Anyone know how to find public domain images of Nixon, Gore, Quayle presiding? 2600:1700:9582:2040:209C:5B6E:9F58:3E2 ( talk) 18:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I wanted to explain my citation for the sentence
I cited the National Review article, because it says:
The "final determination" Under the Act is what Bush v. Gore refers to as the "safe harbor." So I take point 2 above to mean that the alternate electors are not the ones named in point 3. I propose a better sentence:
@ Wtmitchell:... thoughts? Chris vLS ( talk) 00:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Lawprofessor1957 proposed adding the following text. [5] It was reverted by User:Zoozaz1. [6] I support the reversion and would like to memorialize why here and if there is not a consensus, to find it here.
First, of course, there are no citations. But one could certainly find citations that summarize the claims made by the so-called alternate electors.
More importantly, I think the reversion was correct because, in every sentence, the proposed text describes the "states" or the "legislatures" making these claims or giving some kind of blessing to these alternate electors. This is not true, and our sources flatly say so. The National Review -- a conservative journal -- article enumerates how none of the alternate slates have been appointed by their legislatures. Some have been flatly disavowed by the legislature's leaders. Some were even denied entry into the building. To quote the NR article:
It would be a HUGE deal if a state legislature took an official act blessing these alternate slates. If it were true, I think it would be easy to find a source. Until then, I think the current text is fine. @ Wtmitchell: @ Lawprofessor1957: @ Zoozaz1: @ Arglebargle79: Thoughts? Chris vLS ( talk) 00:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Wtmitchell:@ Arglebargle79:I'm sure you two have now heard what happened with the Counting of Electoral Votes the other day. I hope you both are safe and well. I want to bring up the argument that Arglebargle79 brought up on New Year's Day. Arglebargle79 argued that there wouldn't be multiple returns introduced in the count because the National Archives' website with the electoral vote certificates showed only one certificate of electoral vote. During the Count, each state only had one slate of electors introduced, with no "alternate electors". I propose that we make this a precedent, to use the National Archives' listing of electoral vote certificates to determine what electors are in the count and whether multiple returns exist. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) ( talk) 15:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
First, I want to expose my bias. I voted for Biden, and I think he is the properly elected president. Now onto my effort to improve the article. I would argue that the weakest part of this article is how it deals with multiple slates. I know what happened in 1876, but what are multiple slates in the modern context, or even in the post-1887 context? Some might immediately say Hawaii 1960, but I disagree. Specifically, the Electoral Count Act says "in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed...". Clearly this is not Hawaii, since in 1960 there was one consistent state authority that submitted one slate before safe harbor day and then the corrected slate later. The state authority was consistent throughout. So what is dual state authorities in the modern context? Is it a repeat of the 1876 situation in Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina? Or is it something different? Could there ever truly be multiple slates submitted in the modern context? To use the current election as an example, could Republican state legislators in say Arizona declare themselves to be the proper state authority (due to claimed election irregularities), and thus submit an alternate slate that they claim is certified by the state (i.e. themselves)? I have been searching for sources that would answer these questions, but I have not been very successful. The best I can figure out is that the current Electoral College Act does indeed envision a repeat of 1876 when it talks about multiple slates. This is important because, in the case of multiple slates, if the two houses of Congress disagree, then the electoral votes for that state are thrown out. Thus a single house of Congress (e.g. the Senate) can conceivably take enough electoral votes away from the winner to force a contingent election and potentially overturn the winner of the election. -- Westwind273 ( talk) 15:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I think the biggest improvement to the article that could be made would be to clarify what the Electoral Count Act means when it says "two or more of such State authorities". Herbfur postulates that those "two authorities" could be the governor and the legislature. I suspect that the writers of the Electoral Count Act had the 1876 situation in mind. In Louisiana, Stephen Packard (Republican) and Francis Nichols (Democrat) both claimed to be the duly elected governor. Packard certified the Republican electors and Nichols certified the Democratic electors. The situation was the same in South Carolina, where Daniel Chamberlain (Republican) and Wade Hampton (Democrat) both claimed to be governor, and two slates were sent to the Congress. A similar situation occurred in Florida, where the sitting Republican governor signed the Republican slate, and the state attorney-general and newly elected Democratic governor signed the Democratic slate. Both claimed to be the properly certified slate of electors from Florida. Perhaps "two or more such State authorities" can only arise when there are two people who both claim to be governor. I would really like to know the answer to this question, and I think an explanation of this would add a lot to the article. -- Westwind273 ( talk) 05:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
[T]here is a point beyond which you can not bind the human conscience. . . . A decision of the Supreme Court of the United States might be made as a result of bribery, yet there is no power in the country that can set it aside; that is the supreme tribunal. . . . So [Congress] may vote down the voice of the State’s electors, . . . and after the act has been done the power to revoke it, even the power to question it, has passed beyond human control.
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Counting of the electoral votes. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 7#Counting of the electoral votes until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Bagumba ( talk) 11:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
In the introductory text at the beginning of the article we read "Both houses can overrule the Vice President's decision to include or exclude votes and, under the Act, even if the chambers disagree, the governor's certification, not the Vice President, breaks the tie."
The "even if" surely means "if." We are left with a puzzlement, with or without the "even." The tie is over the question of whether to accept the votes certified by a governor.
I'm afraid this needs work, and I'm not able to do it.
David Lloyd-Jones ( talk) 06:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I propose merging Certificate of ascertainment into Electoral Count Act. I think the content in the former can easily be explained in the context of the latter, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in the latter. It is duplicative with the destination article's subsection and source article having the same scope, and they have very significant overlap. The page is also pretty short and is unlikely to be expanded further. The source page also lacks context and requires the background material from the destination page in order for readers to understand it. Moreover, the other certificates during the ascertainment process don't have articles of their own so this page shouldn't be an exception. I created a page for the 'certificate of vote' a while ago, and that also got merged into another article. [1]. All of the reasons I have listed are according to WP:MERGEREASON sufficient to warrant a merge. @ Reywas92 and DividedFrame:, since DividedFrame reversed Reywas92's bold merger, I suggest you both talk it out here. ( talk) 17:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
main article|
Certificate of ascertainment}}
in the relevant section, and I note that there appear to be some conflicts between info in the CofA article and the info in that section.
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)This edit caught my eye and caused me to take a look at that paragraph. As edited to remove an error, it reads:
I haven't researched details, but that doesn't bring to mind what I remember seeing on coverage at the time. I did a quick google and saw this article headed, "Capitol Police ordered not to use tear gas canisters during Jan. 6 riot, despite them being used on Lafayette Park protesters last June ", so I'm wondering about the unsupported assertion in wikivoice re gas masks. Also, I don't remember an armed standoff or anything as actively confrontational as the impression I get from reading that paragraph. Perhaps I misremember, but it seems to me that the rhetoric there needs to be toned down a lot. That paragraph is unsupported and needs reliable supporting sourcing. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
(added) On reflection, this and other nearby material seems to have little or no direct relation to the topic of this article. I've removed if here. Please discuss this to arrive at an editorial consensus about how this material is to be treated here before re-adding it to the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Here, I have reverted what I take to be a WP:BOLD (re)insertion of matrial about the 2020 election which, in my opinion, does not have due topical weight for coverage in this article. I've also done some rewording in order to accomodate this removal.
The material I have removed is located in the article as follows:
The removed material involves objections raised to electoral votes of two states, information abut the background leading up to the objections, vote counts in consideration of the objections, and some details about events following the voting. I believe that these details do not have due weight for coverage by this article. I have linked the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election article, where these details might have due weight for coverage, as {{ main article}} for the 2020 subsection. I suggest comparison of the level of detail involved here with the level of detail for elections in prior years which are also covered here. Please engage in a WP:BRD discussion here regarding this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
The Senate has, at last, introduced a replacement for the Act. So I humbly suggest that we change the title of the article to "The electoral count act of 1887" as soon as it is passed. Notwisconsin ( talk) 13:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I want to (re)raise the issue regarding what happens when electoral votes are rejected and how this is discussed in the article at Electoral Count Act#Majority of electors. I am interested for input as to why we present the issue as being so unsettled. Certainly, any Congress is free from any precedent of a prior Congress, but to me, historical precedent is pretty clear and makes sense logically, so we should present it that way, then discuss how and why certain sources disagree. I believe United_States_Electoral_College#Historical_objections_and_rejections is complete, such that the only elections where not all electoral votes were counted by Congress were 1864 and 1872. In 1864, all electoral votes from Louisiana and Tennessee (all votes for Lincoln) were not counted, reducing both Lincoln's total (the numerator) and the total number of electors appointed (the denominator) by 17. In 1872, all electoral votes from Louisiana and Arkansas (all votes for Grant) were not counted, reducing both Grant's total (the numerator) and the total number of electors appointed (the denominator) by 14. Also in 1872, after Horace Greeley's death, the 3 presidential votes for the deceased Greeley were not counted, but the vice-presidential votes from those 3 electors were counted, thus the total number of presidential electoral votes counted was reduced by 3, but the total number of electors appointed (the denominator) was unchanged. So, from this we can conclude there are two scenarios regarding the rejection of electoral votes by Congress: 1) there is an issue with the appointment of one or more electors (e.g. election "irregularities", election fraud, or overall illegitimacy of the election in a state) that causes Congress to reject the validity of the electors themselves, which logically decreases both the numerator and the denominator, making it as if the electors were never appointed and thereby reducing the number of votes needed to achieve a majority, and 2) there is an issue with the votes of one or more electors (e.g. voting for a deceased person) that causes Congress to reject the validity of specific electoral votes of legitimately appointed electors, causing the votes deemed invalid to be discarded but with no change to the total number of electors (or the number of votes needed for a majority).
In regard to 2020, through the lens of the above,
2021 United States Electoral College vote count#False electors sent by Trump Campaign to challenge real electors in seven states and apparently numerous
reliable sources miss the point. The statement If the results from those seven states had been rejected, neither candidate would have had the 270 votes required in the Electoral College, and the House would have had to decide the election
is arguably (under the above logic and historical precedent) incorrect. If the electors from the 7 states in the
Eastman memos were thrown out due to "election fraud" or the like, akin to Louisiana and Arkansas in 1872, Trump would have 232 votes and Biden would have 222 votes out of a total of 454, of which a majority is 228, and Trump would win outright with no contingent election being triggered. In fact, tossing out New Mexico's electors is not needed; the discarding of electors from the 6 states of the
Ellis memos is the minimum number of states required to make Trump the winner (Trump's 232 to Biden's 227 out of a total of 459, of which a majority is 230). 270 is not some magical, unchanging number, as unfortunately presented by the media, but if it were, only tossing out the 3 closest states (AZ, GA, PA) would have been required. But it makes no sense that Congress could conclude these Biden electors were indeed appointed, keeping the total at 270, but that something is somehow wrong with their votes. Even in a corrupt Constitutional scheme to change an election outcome, you can't have it both ways: if you're concluding there was massive election fraud and the wrong electors were appointed, you can't ratify their appointment while at the same time discounting their votes just to make the math come out in your favor. So for the scheme to work, 6 states would need to be rejected, not 3, and in no scenario was the goal to force a contingent election. Unfortunately, the press and pundits and even Constitutional experts like
Jamie Raskin seem to have gotten this wrong at times. What Eastman and others was proposing was ultimately illegal due to their corrupt intent, but their scenario at least was based on correct Constitutional logic, and fortunately required Congress to reject a whopping 6 states worth of electoral votes.
Tangentially, I feel like the Pence card theory is also presented incorrectly. Why is it not plausible Constitutional hardball that Pence could decide to open the returns from "fake" electors (Republican slates of electors, who were not ultimately appointed) instead of the real ones? Setting aside whether this action is ultimately illegal (and the fact that doing so would obviously be ethically and morally wrong), it's certainly within his Constitutional discretion to "open the certificates" to attempt it (logically, even ceremonial or ministerial roles must have some discretion, it's just that invoking discretion may lead to consequences). What everyone seems to be missing, in my view, is not that Pence couldn't attempt it, it's that it wouldn't work because a majority of both houses of Congress would surely reject Pence's attempt to count the illegitimate votes. The problem with the Pence card theory, then, is not that the VP has no power, it's that the minority view would need to prevail that Congress has no ability to challenge votes opened by the VP, and only must Constitutionally be present so that they may go right into a contingent election if required, meaning that a single officer of the United States could indeed choose the president, which is certainly not what the Framers intended. In the Framer's era, perhaps it was unlikely the VP would know the outcome in each state before hand, and the VP was truly counting the votes and not simply ceremonially ratifying a known outcome, meaning that they could never have surmised a VP attempting to strategically alter the vote count to reach a different outcome. Going further, I suppose Pence could have refused to open certificates of votes, stalling the vote count (a goal of the rioters). Had this persisted, no contingent election could put Trump in office, as that requires the count to be finished (and no candidate having a majority); instead presumably the Speaker of the House would become Acting president on January 20th under this (not very well thought out) scenario.
Anyway, is anyone else troubled by how these issues are presented in the relevant enwiki articles, or have any insights? For lack of a better characterization, because these ideas are so appalling and historically unprecedented, it seems like many are just jumping to the (correct) conclusion that these schemes are illegal and not really thinking through the details as to what has basis in the Constitution and where the concepts actually go astray. Mdewman6 ( talk) 01:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
tl;dr Historical precedent regarding whether or not the total number of electors appointed is changed when electoral votes are rejected is clear and logical, so why does Electoral Count Act#Majority of electors present it as such an open question? Consequently, 2021 United States Electoral College vote count#False electors sent by Trump Campaign to challenge real electors in seven states and some reliable sources seem to misunderstand how Eastman's and other's scheme would logically have played out; a contingent election would not have occurred, instead the goal was to elect Trump outright by throwing out the electors from the 6 (or 7) closest states that voted for Biden, giving Trump a majority of the remaining electors. Mdewman6 ( talk) 02:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I've split off a Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 article, which needs expansion. I think it's best to restrict this article to the now-historical version of the bill, and keep substantive discussion of the new rules in the new article, since if we mix up the old and new provisions in one article it will become confusing. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 06:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)