Where are the rest of the Electoral Votes?

In reviewing the US Electoral College 2008 Election webiste, I see that only 24 states have turned in their certified packages so far.

The packages were due December 24, 2008 even though there is no penalty if states don't comply.

Tomorrow, Jan 3rd, the Certificates of Ascertainment to Congress are transmitted to Congress.

If there are only 24 Certificates to transmit, by my count that is only 170 votes that are currently certified for Obama. 270 are needed to officially win the election.

Where are the rest?

January 8th, 2009 the votes are counted for the 2008 Election. Normally it is Jan. 6th but Public Law 110-430 changed the date of the electoral vote in Congress in 2009 from January 6 to January 8. This date change is effective only for the 2008 presidential election.

What is Congress going to count? Only the votes from less than half of the states? Where are the rest?

What happens if they don't get received before transmission to Congress tomorrow?

Today is only the 2nd of January, so they wouldn't have had someone working on the website yesterday. Maybe expect some more by Monday. Some government agencies aren't all that tech savvy.

reply to post by spec_ops_wannabe


TOMORROW is the day the votes are transmitted to Congress. What good does receiving them on Monday do?

From the Electoral College website

On or Before January 3, 2009

* Transmission of Certificates of Ascertainment to Congress
As the new Congress assembles, the Archivist transmits copies of the Certificates of Ascertainment to Congress. This generally occurs in late December or early January when the Archivist and/or representatives from the Federal Register meet with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House. This is, in part, a ceremonial occasion. Informal meetings may take place earlier.

January 8, 2009

* Counting Electoral Votes in Congress
Public Law 110-430 changed the date of the electoral vote in Congress in 2009 from January 6 to January 8. This date change is effective only for the 2008 presidential election.
The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes (Congress may pass a law to change the date). The President of the Senate is the presiding officer. If a Senator and a House member jointly submit an objection, each House would retire to its chamber to consider it. The President and Vice President must achieve a majority of electoral votes (270) to be elected. In the absence of a majority, the House selects the President, and the Senate selects the Vice President. If a State submits conflicting sets of electoral votes to Congress, the two Houses acting concurrently may accept or reject the votes. If they do not concur, the votes of the electors certified by the Governor of the State would be counted in Congress.

Where in the processes for election does it allow for Certificates of Ascertainment received AFTER the transmission of the votes to Congress to be included?

Has this ever happened before?

This has to be a case of the webpage not being properly updated. I find it real hard to believe that more than half of the states haven't officially submitted their votes yet.

reply to post by BlueTriangle


The Biggest election in decades and they aren't updating the website???

Sounds a little off to me. But maybe you are right.... maybe

I do need to correct something. 46 Certificates of Ascertainment have been received from the 50 states, but this only certified WHO the Electors are.

Certificates of Vote have been received from only 24 states according to the website.

Edit to fix link

[edit on 1/2/09 by redhatty]

[edit on 1/2/09 by redhatty]

The whole electoral vote system is joke. It is nothing more than a way to rig election

www.fairvote.org...


A few states to win

Based on the current allocation of electoral votes, a candidate could win the presidency with electoral majorities in only 11 states. Conversely, a candidate could win every vote in 40 states and still lose the presidency.

The 11 States that can elect the president (electoral votes in parenthesis): California (55), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27), Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Georgia (15), New Jersey (15), North Carolina (15). Total: 271 electoral votes.

Must electors vote for the candidate who won their State's popular vote?

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

Which States bind electors to popular vote results? Refer to Electors Bound by State Law and Pledges to find out.

The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

Today, it is rare for electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of electors have voted as pledged.


I proved way back in school when we were studing this that Person A could get 2 to 3 times as many people voting for them and still lose to Person B that only had a small number of people voting for them. The whole electroal voting system is nothing more than a tool to give the people the illusion there vote means something. The decision on who is going to win has alread been made way before the first vote is ever cast. Any one who can not see this is only fooling them selfs.
Check it out for you self.

reply to post by fixer1967


I appreciate the information & history, but... how does that deal with the topic of the thread? I am asking WHERE ARE THE ELECTORAL VOTES, not why don't we get rid of the electoral college

I am really surprised at how this seems to be a non-issue for ATS members.

I, personally, find it very irregular and concerning.

Originally posted by redhatty
reply to post by fixer1967

 

I appreciate the information & history, but... how does that deal with the topic of the thread? I am asking WHERE ARE THE ELECTORAL VOTES, not why don't we get rid of the electoral college

Sorry. It just that anytime I see any thing having to do where that joke I have to sound off about it. To answer your question, maybe something has went wrong and some one is trying to hide that fact. I have a lot of ideas but I think I will keep them to my self for now. I hope I am wrong.

Or much of it could be due to the fact that today is the friday after a major holiday and as such some states took today off as well.

Oh wait...maybe the other states refuse to submit elector vote until such time as the question of legitimacy is fully and publicly answered by Obama.

reply to post by Ahabstar


Considering they were due in by Dec 24, 2008 and it is now 9 days later, I doubt that the holiday has much to do with it - they were due BEFORE the holiday

Well that's odd... I'm not sure if this has ever happened before, but I wouldn't think so. Could just be that they haven't updated the website because of the holiday, but I would think that the electors would have already had their votes recorded before Christmas so they would have had plenty of time to update the website. Unless of course whoever they have updating the website took a week or two off for vacation and no one else has thought to update it.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Oh wait...maybe the other states refuse to submit elector vote until such time as the question of legitimacy is fully and publicly answered by Obama.

I think this is the reason... maybe not refusing but just waiting to see what happens with the SCOTUS on Jan. 9.



[edit on 2/1/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]

I didn't want to have to be the one to say it but nobody else has.
Maybe the other states just didn't turn theirs in yet because they have not been able to certify that fauxbama is even eligable to be president due to that good ole Birth Certificate issue. Is this where you were going ?
Okay, that's said, and maybe by Monday they will be in or your sources will be more updated. Have a nice weekend.

Hi Guys why is it only the current sectarian issues in the US pervade ?
In true Celtic fashion surely my Red Indian cousins hold sway in any vote?
Or are you truely undermined by the ethnic intrustionalist vote?

reply to post by redhatty


The site hasn't updated. Texas isn't on the list. Neither are Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas or Louisiana, ALL of whom went to John McCain. Do you think they're waiting for Obama to prove his eligibility?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I don't know what to think. I'd like to believe that the unanswered questions as to eligibility are the reason, but I have no proof of that.

The votes get counted on the 9th. If they are not in, they can't be counted.

Well, according to Orly Taitz, who went down there and inspected them first hand:

Anyway, we found that the certificates of two states were "missing", much to the embarrassment of the Federal Register people (Nebraska and Georgia). They will try to round those up. The certificates came in an astounding variety of formats, since there is no uniform required format. Although I think in some ways our expedition was a waste of time, in other ways it was quite valuable. It was a signal to the Federal Register that there are citizens who still are watching. And will make sure that the law is followed.

Which leads me to believe they haven't updated. Apparently only two are missing, and Georgia's is scanned on the website so maybe that one is misplaced? Who knows. So technically only one might be missing?

[edit on 3-1-2009 by davion]

reply to post by davion


Thank you for finding that!

At least we have someone who knows that *most* of them are there

Website is updated. All 51 are present.