The text of Pennsylvania SB 1282, which provides that each U.S. House district should elect its own presidential elector, is now available here. The bill is badly worded. It implies that nominees of qualified parties for presidential elector must live in the district they seek to represent, but the bill makes no mention of independent presidential candidates, or the nominees of unqualified parties. If the bill passes as written, it will be subject to litigation because it is so unclear.
Current law says that the presidential nominees of qualified parties choose candidates for presidential elector. This already-existing provision is unique to Pennsylvania; no other state tells the presidential nominees themselves that they must choose their candidates for presidential elector. In other states, the state parties choose the candidates for presidential elector.
The bill, on page two, says the presidential nominees of qualified parties “shall designate one nominee from each congressional district.” This suggests that the nominee must live in that district, but does not make this clear.
(c) When presidential electors are to be elected, their
names shall not be printed upon the ballot, but in lieu thereof, the names of the candidates of their respective parties or political bodies for President and Vice-President of the United States shall be printed together in pairs under the title “Presidential Electors.”
Yeah, that really makes sense.
1 –
Yep. It does. A lot more sense, in fact, than trying to convince more than 3% of the American electorate that they should vote for someone else to decide who should be their president.
But keep trying.
Do the PA robot party hacks write their EVIL bills on toilet paper or what ???
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Does an ENTIRE election law code have to be put into a constitutional amendment ??? — i.e. ZERO discretion for the EVIL party hacks to play rigged election games.
# 1 Standard BAD English in a law.
At least split the sentence into 2 parts.
See the Forms part of the bill.
i.e. a mere Voter would be electing 3 E.C. party hacks – 2 at large in the State and 1 in his/her rigged U.S.A. Rep. gerrymander district.
Independent candidates in Texas designate their vice presidential candidate and elector candidates (who must consent). It would be a simple change to apply this to all presidential candidates, with the political party giving their assent. When California switches to Top 2 for presidential elections, they will do the same.
I couldn’t find anything in the existing law that provides for independent presidential candidates or presidential candidates of political bodies. But I couldn’t find the section that was being modified.