Nit-picky election question

[tango]

This is a serious question. I'm not a US citizen so it's probably safe to say I know less about the fine details of the election than many here. The question is more about timing than anything else.

Let's take it as a given that Joe Biden has won the vote in enough states to secure the 270+ electoral college votes, and let's also take it as a given that Donald Trump has no chance of changing that. The question is, does Joe Biden become president-elect now or only after the electoral college meets to vote for the next president?

Assuming Trump is unsuccessful in challenging the results it's only a question of time - unless I've misunderstood the electoral college completely there's at least a theoretical possibility (even if vanishingly unlikely) that the Democrat-nominated electoral college voters could go to Washington and vote for Trump as the next president, and so the title of president-elect can only be conferred after the electoral college has voted.

 

[Andrew]

The electorial college has to vote before a winner is declared, the associated press has zero authority to officially declare the outcome of the election.
FBI investigations are swift so we should know for sure who will serve as president the next four years come Jan 20 2021

 

[tango]

The electorial college has to vote before a winner is declared, the associated press has zero authority to officially declare the outcome of the election.
FBI investigations are swift so we should know for sure who will serve as president the next four years come Jan 20 2021

I realise the press has no authority, I'm just curious whether Biden is technically president-elect now or only after the electoral college meets to vote (again, assuming the tally of 279+ EC votes holds).

 

[Andrew]

I realise the press has no authority, I'm just curious whether Biden is technically president-elect now or only after the electoral college meets to vote (again, assuming the tally of 279+ EC votes holds).

Only after

 

[MrW]

If either concedes, the other is then technically President-elect. Hillary Clinton advised not to concede.

That happened in 1800 and 1824.

The Electoral College will meet and vote December 14th, 2020. If neither receives 270 votes, it immediately goes to the House of Representatives.

On December 14th, we should have either a President or a President-elect, if no court manages to stop the process.

 

[tango]

If either concedes, the other is then technically President-elect. Hillary Clinton advised not to concede.

That happened in 1800 and 1824.

The Electoral College will meet and vote December 14th, 2020. If neither receives 270 votes, it immediately goes to the House of Representatives.

On December 14th, we should have either a President or a President-elect, if no court manages to stop the process.

Didn't Al Gore concede in 2000 and then retract his concession? Would that have made GWB President-elect for a very short time only to take the title away from him and then return it again after the electoral college voted?

 

[MrW]

I don’t think it’s official until the Electoral College vote.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

The slate of electors, when they meet, will cast a "vote" that reflects the result of their district. Technically, a member of the 'Slate of Electors' could (but ought not to) go rouge and cast a different vote than the result from their electoral district. To do so, though, would create holy heck-fire for that person.
Realistically, though, no scenario like that is likely. After the vote by the electors, that result is the deciding factor.

 

[tango]

The slate of electors, when they meet, will cast a "vote" that reflects the result of their district. Technically, a member of the 'Slate of Electors' could (but ought not to) go rouge and cast a different vote than the result from their electoral district. To do so, though, would create holy heck-fire for that person.
Realistically, though, no scenario like that is likely. After the vote by the electors, that result is the deciding factor.

Was it in 2000 or 2016 (or maybe both) that the Democrat contender appealed to the electoral college to vote for them instead of the Republican? I remember reading that the electors aren't strictly required (at least not in a legal sense) to cast their vote in any particular manner but they shouldn't expect to go rogue without any fallout at all.

Is anyone else curious at the apparent rush to label Biden the "president elect"? It seems awfully sudden and awfully intense.

 

[Bluezone777]

Presidential Elections - FairVote

Learn about the various ways candidates are elected to the Presidency.

www.fairvote.org

Here's a list of the laws regarding faithless electors by state as it varies from state to state. @tango

 

[Josiah]

Didn't Al Gore concede in 2000 and then retract his concession? Would that have made GWB President-elect for a very short time only to take the title away from him and then return it again after the electoral college voted?

YES. Al Gore conceded and then retracted that. He did not finally concede until mid December.

Truth is, this whole thing of "conceding" is NOWHERE in the Constitution or the Law - it's just a quite NEW custom. There is no mandate whatsoever that Trump EVER concede. And there is NOTHING that mandates Trump involve himself in some "transfer" before it is declared who won. Again, recent custom is to do this but that's recent custom.

That said, the election WILL be definitively declared (I think that happens in mid December). The Supreme Court or Congress could delay that, but at some point (probably yet in 2020), there will be a final statement. At that point, I think Trump or Biden should accept things - whether they think them "fair" or not. Biden had 47 years and Trump had 4 years to do something about elections in America and neither did anything - they now need to accept what is, BUT need not do so until it is officially, formally declared (and that's weeks away).


Josiah



.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Was it in 2000 or 2016 (or maybe both) that the Democrat contender appealed to the electoral college to vote for them instead of the Republican? I remember reading that the electors aren't strictly required (at least not in a legal sense) to cast their vote in any particular manner but they shouldn't expect to go rogue without any fallout at all.

Is anyone else curious at the apparent rush to label Biden the "president elect"? It seems awfully sudden and awfully intense.

As I recall, there was some conjecture in the press in 2016 that, perhaps, enough electors could go rogue in this manner to overturn the result for Trump as President Elect. Wishful thinking, I believe, as the public was in a state of collective shock

And, you're right - it is a rush to give the title of President Elect to Biden as Trump has not conceded and the electoral college has not met to cast final votes.

 

[Andrew]

The slate of electors, when they meet, will cast a "vote" that reflects the result of their district. Technically, a member of the 'Slate of Electors' could (but ought not to) go rouge and cast a different vote than the result from their electoral district. To do so, though, would create holy heck-fire for that person.
Realistically, though, no scenario like that is likely. After the vote by the electors, that result is the deciding factor.

Very true! But still the majority of the electorial vote in that state wins so when one goes rogue it doesn't effect anything.
I don't believe an entire state was ever flipped by their electorial representatives.

Just curious because I haven't been keeping up with the news lately
Has any of the votes officially gone up or down for either parties yet so far in the current process?

 

[tango]

Very true! But still the majority of the electorial vote in that state wins so when one goes rogue it doesn't effect anything.
I don't believe an entire state was ever flipped by their electorial representatives.

Just curious because I haven't been keeping up with the news lately
Has any of the votes officially gone up or down for either parties yet so far in the current process?

Apparently 2600 votes were found in Georgia, which reduced Biden's lead by a little but not enough to flip the state. But then came the question that if one area had messed up they couldn't be sure others hadn't also done the same thing, although still few seem to think that Trump can flip the state.

 

[MrW]

The point is this: Only legal votes should be counted. That will make a difference.

 

[Lamb]

The point is this: Only legal votes should be counted. That will make a difference.

In my state we weren't even given a receipt for our vote like we did in past elections so how would I know mine was even counted (it's a legal vote)?

 

[tango]

The point is this: Only legal votes should be counted. That will make a difference.

The trouble is it seems that there's no way of knowing which votes were legal and which were not, if even some of the allegations are true. If votes have been separated from their outer envelopes (which seems like a reasonable thing to do, to preserve privacy regarding who voted for which candidates) then an invalid mail-in ballot can't be differentiated from a valid one.

Invalidating mail-in ballots en masse might be an option in some cases (I forget the details, but think it's PA where the state constitution prescribes situations where voters may request an absentee ballot, so mass-mailing of absentee ballots is against the constitution and therefore those ballots shouldn't be counted). The trouble there is that legally cast absentee ballots get thrown out along with the invalid ones.

Short of invalidating the entire election and holding another election, which seems like an unimaginably large undertaking, I struggle to see any way to resolve some of the problems, if they are determined to actually be genuine problems.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

The point is this: Only legal votes should be counted. That will make a difference.

What are "legal votes"?

 

[MrW]

A legal vote is when you are a registered voter and you vote either in person (showing your ID) or you request a mail-in ballot using the procedures required in your State.

 

[tango]

A legal vote is when you are a registered voter and you vote either in person (showing your ID) or you request a mail-in ballot using the procedures required in your State.

... and, presumably, that your vote is received within a predetermined timeframe and properly validated.