Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Ohio Elector (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/74149-ohio-elector.html)

One of the democratic Ohio electors is a congressman and apparently you can't hold a federal office and be an elector. So if Kerry win's Ohio there is a chance that the electoral vote there will be challenged in court.

If this happens would you feel it is "right"? Personally if this happens i'd be extreamly upset. It would go against the spirt of the vote and illustrate even more flaws in our system.

I read about this on another site, but couldn't find it from a legitimate news source. Anyone have a link to this?

I saw it on Current Electoral Vote Predictor 2004, which has been honest in past, but I can't find this item in a direct news item:

Quote:

Stupidity news: One of Kerry's electors in Ohio, Rep. Sherrod Brown, is a congressman. Unfortunately, the constitution forbids federal office holders from being electors. It is possible that if Kerry wins Ohio, Brown's right to cast an electoral vote will be challenged in court. Whoever picked a constitutionally ineligible elector needs to get his or her mental software ungraded to the latest release.

Is it too late to replace an elector? If this is legit, I'd step down immediately if I were him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by redlemon

I saw it on [url=http://www.electoral-vote.com/]Is it too late to replace an elector? If this is legit, I'd step down immediately if I were him.

That was my first question. Fix it!

But how would you feel if his vote was "Challenged" i think there is a problem with him stepping down because the ballots are already made and there are probably laws to stop ballots from being changed so close to an election.

This is the kind of thing that will only be an issue if the race is close enough to be contested. It is right there in the constitution though:
Article II section 1

Quote:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, 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.

Not exactly sure of the rationale for this though.

Again from electoral-vote.com:

Quote:

Stupidity news revisited: Yesterday I pointed out that one of Kerry's Ohio electors, Rep. Sherrod Brown, is constitutionally ineligible to be an elector because he is a federal officeholder. He resigned yesterday as elector, undoubtedly due to my pointing this out to 650,000 people. Suppose he had stayed on and Kerry won the popular vote and Ohio and the electoral college 270 to 268. If the Republicans had gone to the Supreme Court and gotten Brown declared ineligible and also gotten a ruling saying that Ohio could not replace him with someone the voters had not selected, the score would be Kerry 269, Bush 268. Since Kerry would no longer have the required 270 electoral votes needed to win, the House, controlled by the Republicans, would then choose Bush. We could have had a situation in which Kerry won the popular vote, Kerry won the electoral vote, and Bush became president. I don't think that would have been good for the country.

Also, see Brown learns he can't serve as Kerry elector, steps down
So, story over. Thank goodness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locobot

This is the kind of thing that will only be an issue if the race is close enough to be contested. It is right there in the constitution though:
Article II section 1

Not exactly sure of the rationale for this though.

I guess they figured if holding a federal office of any sort that elector may feel obliged to vote for someone other than what the majority told him. Because, I believe back in the old days the Electors for the EC were just one group of people not party aligned.