|
|
Eleven states targeted to
overturn 2004 Presidential election
by Salvador Astucia, Nov. 17, 2004
Comments below are responses to the following article:
"How to overturn the 2004 Presidential election"
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/Election2004/overturn.htm
==================================
Several people in the Usenet community raised excellent
questions about my proposal. The following are some of
those questions/comments and my responses:
MIKE SMITH: Most state constitutions have rules regarding
how electors are chosen. Generally, a state Governor
cannot just unilaterally decide who that state's electors
are going to be.
SALVADOR: Correct. A Governor cannot unilaterally set
aside electors who were chosen by popular vote. But a
governor could introduce a resolution to be voted on by
the state legislature which would set aside the chosen
electors due to voter fraud. If it passed, the deed
would be done. For states with a Democratic majority
in the legislature and a Democratic Governor as well
(like West Virginia, for example), the replacement
electors would obviously be Democrats. For states
without a Republican majority in the legislature,
it could become more complex.
==================================
CHARLES SAMARDZA: Republican Governors can do the same.
Arnie could give California (55 EV's) to Bush.
SALVADOR: I would not have a problem with that scenario
for a couple of reasons. First, I would support
governors of either party setting aside the popular
vote because it would bring about a much needed end
to fraudulent popular elections, regardless of the
outcome of this particular presidential election.
In short, it would solve the vote fraud problem
without compromising the integrity of the Constitution.
Second, California's 55 electors alone would not be
enough to give Bush a victory if all eleven states
previously mentioned would choose Democratic electors,
thereby taking a total of 94 electors from Bush. Even
if Schwarzenegger appointed 55 Republican electors,
Kerry would still have 291 electoral votes and Bush
would only have 247. Still, the Republicans have the
potential of taking back 136 electors total if all
Republican Governors presiding in states that Kerry
won (nine states total) would set aside the popular
vote and choose Republican electors. If that scenario
would occur, my math shows Bush would win with 328
electors to Kerry's 210.*
Although two big states--California and New York--could
turn it around for the Republicans by delivering a
whopping 86 electors between them, the demographics
of both states are highly Democratic. Consequently,
the political fallout could be intense. The potential
for violence is greater in those two states than in
any of the eleven states I listed which could take
94 electors from Bush.
But as the previous person pointed out, a governor
alone cannot choose electors. It would have to be
approved by the state legislature as well. So that's
another variable to consider.
[* NOTE: There were 538 electoral votes total. To win
the Presidential election, one of the candidates only
needs 270 (more than 50 percent). On Nov. 2, 2004,
Bush got 286; Kerry got 252. If eleven states would
take 94 electors from Bush and give them to Kerry,
as I have proposed, then Bush would only have 192
and Kerry would have 346. At that point,
Schwarzenegger's 54 electors would still not be
enough to give Bush a majority. Bush would still be
24 electors short, more than Kerry needs now. But if
Bush could take back 136 electors from Kerry states
with Republican Governors, then Bush would have 328
electors total, making him the winner. (The nine
Kerry states with Republican Governors are
California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island,
and Vermont.)]
To read more Usenet discussions about overturning
the 2004 election, click here:
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/Election2004/overturn_questions.htm
Salvador Astucia
|
|