" Trump has a second, viable stealthy road to victory."

[StinkyToes]

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/do ... ory-172235

Without disagreeing with the conventional wisdom about the final tally when all the legal votes are counted, I believe the current consensus is missing the fact that Trump has a second, viable stealthy road to victory ... [T]his stealthy road follows in the footsteps of a number of previous contested American elections, especially the 1876 election that pitted Tilden v. Hayes. Then as now, each state must decide on a group of electors to meet with a joint session of Congress on January 6 where the winner of the presidential election is declared. The normal practice in a state where Biden won the popular-vote total would be for state election officials to certify the results and send a slate of electors to Congress. But state legislatures have the constitutional authority to conclude that the popular vote has been corrupted and thus send a competing slate of electors on behalf of their state. The 12th Amendment to the Constitution specifies that the “President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.” That means that in the case of disputes about competing electoral slates, the President of the Senate—Vice President Pence—would appear to have the ultimate authority to decide which to accept and which to reject. Pence would choose Trump. Democrats would appeal to the Supreme Court.

Alternatively, if at that point, no candidate has the required 270 electoral votes, the 12th Amendment stipulates, “the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote.” Currently, Republicans have a state delegation majority with 26 of the 50 states and they appear almost certain to keep that majority in the new Congress. A vote of the states would then elect President Trump for a second term. And again, Democrats would appeal that outcome to the Supreme Court.

Am curious what you all think of this analysis?

[ahhrunforthehills]

It is definitely viable. In fact, I suspected he was paving the road for this even before the election. Trump, just like any good businessman, will pretty much always have a Plan B.

Many of the states that are being disputed have a democratic governor and republican state legislature (or vice versus) which, from my understanding, is what you need for this to occur.

As far as how “likely”? I dunno, I think that it might come down to the evidence. The Republican Party would be asking a lot of politicians to fall on the sword if the evidence is flimsy (reelection could be a concern in battleground areas).

Plus, the Supreme Court voting in favor of Trump for enough cases of fraud to change enough states to make Biden drop below 270 is a big ask. I though it was a lot more viable of a path when Biden was at 270 instead of 290. I would think dropping 2 states is a lot harder than dropping 1 state. But then again, the discovery process can uncover a lot and this is the problem with winning by such a small amount. It is a really a perfect storm for it.

[Cortopassi]

If done without hard, unassailable evidence, yeah, if you are looking to destroy the country, this will do it.

[glennds]

Looking at constitutional wording in a very literal way, I can't go so far as to say this is wrong per se. It all comes down to interpretation.
I would consider two additional angles, one being commonsense logic, and the other being what was intended in the Constitution.

On the first point, think about it, if the State legislatures could truly just disregard the citizens' votes at their own whim and appoint elector slates to do whatever they wish, then what is the point of holding an election in the first place? In other words, does it make sense to have campaigns and then afford citizens a right to vote it you are going to disregard it so completely?

On the second note, if you accept that the fundamental recurring theme of the Constitution being individual freedom and liberty, then how could it be the drafters' intention that the State government could undermine, if not totally supplant, individual right to vote. Even if it were intended to create such overriding governmental power, it would be in conflict with the 14th Amendment which protects the right to vote, and for that vote to count. Just doesn't make sense whether you consider the United States a democracy, Constitutional republic, or whatever other term refers to freedom and liberty, and limitation of governmental power.

Now if there was supportable evidence of widespread fraud, the place to adjudicate it would be in a Court through a legal proceeding with evidentiary hearings, not a legislature "concluding" there was fraud and then disenfranchising all its voters. There is of course the principle of due process. And that court adjudication process is currently underway, so far not looking very successful. For it to fail completely, and then for the legislatures to disenfranchise their voters anyway would be even more outrageous.
But if the court proceedings result in substantiated allegations of fraud, it could be another story, limited of course to the State(s) where the fraud was proven. I think it's a high bar to ask a court to throw out valid votes along with illegal votes, because again there's the 14th Amendment, so there is a question whether the affected numbers could be meaningful.

All this said, if a person just really really wants Trump to win, then hanging on to this strategy as a Hail Mary might be understandable, but for all the ideological and mechanical reasons above, I think the chance of such a thing actually happening is basically nonexistent. There's also the downstream consequences as Cortopassi points out.

[ahhrunforthehills]

IMHO, the Supreme Court will only hear the issue(s) if it will have a material outcome. Even then, the Supreme Court will likely uphold each state's independence in conducting their elections (which is typically determined by that state's legislature). If different rules were followed other than what that state legislature had decided, that state would have cut their own throat by tainting those specific votes.

Regardless, Trump is going to need to uncover A LOT of fraud in order to pull this off. So far, the RNC allegedly has identified 11,000 cases of voter fraud and has over 500 sworn affidavits (there will be undoubtedly more allegations if/when there is discovery). It will be interesting to see if they find anything of material value.

I think the country is torn regardless. A third of the country already thought that Hillary was robbed. Now a third of the country thinks Trump was robbed. What are people going to do? Riot and loot in January? This is AMERICA... nobody riots when it is cold outside! People will be too busy with their netflix, porn, and video games to care. Maybe they will stage a Zoom-based riot?

[glennds]

Regardless, Trump is going to need to uncover A LOT of fraud in order to pull this off. So far, the RNC allegedly has identified 11,000 cases of voter fraud and has over 500 sworn affidavits (there will be undoubtedly more allegations if/when there is discovery). It will be interesting to see if they find anything of material value.

I've tried not to spend too much time thinking about this for fear it will all be a waste of time. But...... if there's a case of voter fraud, is there a way to prove that the fraudulent vote was for Trump or Biden? What if some of the cases of voter fraud are in Trump's favor, thus adjusting for them hurts his count?
What I'm trying to say is voter fraud could go both ways, so proving it, AND having it help the candidate alleging it, could be two different things. Complicated.

[Xan]

glenn, there seems to be a lot of confusion on your part about voting for President, which is very common these days.

The state legislatures choose the Electors. Period. There is no right to vote for President.

It so happens that the legislature in each state has chosen to establish a popular vote in their state as the mechanism for picking Electors. Now, the Bush v Gore precedent was that the laws on the books at the time of the election are what apply. So it might be difficult for a legislature to override the (nominal) election results, depending exactly what the election law in a given state says.

[ahhrunforthehills]

glenn, there seems to be a lot of confusion on your part about voting for President, which is very common these days.

The state legislatures choose the Electors. Period. There is no right to vote for President.

It so happens that the legislature in each state has chosen to establish a popular vote in their state as the mechanism for picking Electors. Now, the Bush v Gore precedent was that the laws on the books at the time of the election are what apply. So it might be difficult for a legislature to override the (nominal) election results, depending exactly what the election law in a given state says.

Exactly. This is also why winning with the bear-minimum electoral votes on election night doesn't "automatically" make you a "winner". There is always the chance that one of those "electors" that are entitled to their "electoral vote" does a write-in for Bernie Sanders (i.e. "faithless elector). Then Biden is at 269.

This is also why it doesn't matter if they uncover fraud that goes against Republicans. It isn't about Trump getting 270 votes. It is about making sure that NOBODY gets 270 votes. When that happens, it is voted on by the House of Representatives (with 1 vote per state)... which the republicans would very likely win.

[Tortoise]

I wouldn't think it necessarily has to be proved whether the voter fraud pushed the result in Biden's or Trump's favor. It seems like the existence of voter fraud itself (provided it's of a sufficient magnitude) could simply invalidate the state's election result, especially if it's impossible to distinguish the fraudulent votes from the legal ones. I'm not a lawyer, though -- that's just me applying common sense to the situation.

Regarding Corto's and glennds's comment about "downstream consequences", I think we'll have that either way. If Trump is reelected, many or even most Dems will be convinced that the election was stolen. And if Biden is elected, many or even most Republicans will be convinced that the election was stolen.

Either way, faith in the integrity of American elections has already been severely damaged. Not necessarily by Trump's accusations of voter fraud, but because we allowed Covid-1984 hysteria to push our nation into an unprecedented situation of last-minute (and perhaps technically illegal) modifications of state voting procedures and laws that created a total clusterfuck.

[ahhrunforthehills]

I wouldn't think it necessarily has to be proved whether the voter fraud pushed the result in Biden's or Trump's favor. It seems like the existence of voter fraud itself (provided it's of a sufficient magnitude) could simply invalidate the state's election result, especially if it's impossible to distinguish the fraudulent votes from the legal ones. I'm not a lawyer, though -- that's just me applying common sense to the situation.

Regarding Corto's and glennds's comment about "downstream consequences", I think we'll have that either way. If Trump is reelected, many or even most Dems will be convinced that the election was stolen. And if Biden is elected, many or even most Republicans will be convinced that the election was stolen.

Either way, faith in the integrity of American elections has already been severely damaged. Not necessarily by Trump's accusations of voter fraud, but because we allowed Covid-1984 hysteria to push our nation into an unprecedented situation of last-minute (and perhaps technically illegal) modifications of state voting procedures and laws that created a total clusterfuck.

+1

[glennds]

glenn, there seems to be a lot of confusion on your part about voting for President, which is very common these days.

The state legislatures choose the Electors. Period. There is no right to vote for President.

Xan,
I *think* I understand the process. To me the issue that you are speaking of comes down to whether or not a state legislature chooses and sends a slate of electors that will vote in the electoral college in a manner consistent with the popular vote of that particular state. Traditionally they do. While there have been limited cases of "faithless" electors, I do not believe there has been a case where a state has appointed a slate of electors submitted by the party that lost the popular vote of that state. Do you know otherwise? (here I am drawing a distinction between an individual elector going rogue and voting faithlessly as opposed to a state selecting the whole slate from the losing party - in my estimation two different scenarios).

On paper it may read as though a state legislature can simply do whatever it wants in terms of selecting electors, and it varies by state as to whether electors are bound or whether they can do whatever they want. In either of these circumstances, if either does so without any regard to the popular vote of the state, I think serious issues are raised including the purpose of the popular state vote in the first place.

And if there indeed is no right for a citizen to vote for President, AND there is no express or implicit obligation for a state legislature to select electors based on state popular vote..... then why has it traditionally been done that way thus far? And why do we hold a popular vote?

[doodle]

I'm not that smart, but at least I know when I'm talking out of my ass. Many people on this forum are now constitutional legal scholars it seems...as well as experienced virologists. I don't think what people are talking about with regards to electors has any basis in present legal reality.

---


"There are a host of clear legal problems with this suggestion, including that electors are required to be selected on Election Day, not later (absent circumstances not present here), and that due process requires a state to give effect to the fundamental right to vote for president. What’s more, such a move would justifiably be seen by much of the public as a coup. It is a terrible idea.

But even more fundamentally, the Supreme Court has unanimously undercut the core premise to this argument for legislative superpower. And we should know. We argued the opposite before the court this year, in the context of presidential electors, rather than state legislatures, going rogue—and we lost.

The legal theory that would allow state legislatures to go rogue and appoint electors without regard for the popular vote rests on an argument made by Chief Justice William Rehnquist in Bush v. Gore, for himself and two other justices. On this view, a legislature is unconstrained in its power to set the manner by which electors are selected—meaning that even after an election, the legislature could ignore the results and select a different slate altogether. A recent opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggests that Rehnquist’s argument may again be on the rise.

But advocates for this view need to recognize that between Bush v. Gore and today, the Supreme Court has unanimously decided that presidential electors are not actually “electors” but instead are bound to the people’s vote. That principle that cabins elector discretion must also constrain legislatures—at least if the country is to avoid an abomination that the Framers expressly rejected.

At its core, Rehnquist’s argument in Bush v. Gore defended the special structure that the Framers had erected for selecting the president. Central to that structure was “electors” — people chosen for the sole purpose of choosing who the president would be. Those electors were to be selected as the legislatures directed. The Framers had considered giving Congress the power to choose the president. They rejected it. They considered giving governors the power to choose the president. They rejected that too. They considered giving state legislatures the power to choose the president but feared that would make the president too dependent on the states, or on the political games played by the states, so they expressly rejected that idea as well. And they considered giving the people the power to choose the president directly. For many reasons — including most prominently the practical impossibility of running a campaign when it took four months to cross the nation — that idea never took hold.

Instead, the Framers crafted a distinctive structure, echoing the plan Maryland had for selecting its governor. Electors were to be selected in the manner the legislature chose—but it was electors, not state legislatures, who were to decide who the president should be.

This structure did create, as Rehnquist observed, unique features within the constitutional design. In exercising their power to decide how electors are to be chosen, legislatures could not be constrained by either state law or the state’s constitution. If a state’s constitution, for example, said that the people shall choose the electors in an election, that rule did not in fact constrain the state legislature. Instead, “after granting the franchise” to the people, as a majority of the Supreme Court in Bush put it, a legislature could “take back the power to appoint electors” “at any time.” Or put differently, when the legislature acted pursuant to the power granted to it by Article II, it stands above any limits imposed by state law.

We each made a similar argument to the Supreme Court in May when, in Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado v. Baca, we defended the Framers’ plan for presidential electors. Electors, as we argued—though selected in the “manner” that the state legislatures directed—were given their power by the Constitution, not state legislatures. That power, we argued, could not be constrained by state law, for precisely the same reason that state law could not constrain state legislatures. Electors were above state regulation, just as state legislatures were.

This is not the only context in which the Supreme Court has recognized that state legislatures have superpowers granted to them by the federal constitution. In Leser v. Garnett (1922), the court had held that even a state constitution could not constrain a state legislature when that legislature was ratifying an amendment to the federal constitution. When exercising that ratifying power, the legislature performed a “federal function.” That function could not be constrained by the state in any way, whether by its constitution or, as the Supreme Court had held in an earlier case, Hawke v. Smith (1920), by an express vote of its people.

Such cases do support the theory of legislative superpower birthed by Chief Justice Rehnquist and echoed by Justice Kavanaugh. But that superpower is to the end of selecting electors. The Framers expressly rejected the idea that the state legislatures themselves should choose the president. The corruption of post-election bargaining was obvious to them. They therefore expressly avoided giving any existing entity the power to select a president, so as to avoid that obvious corruption. Instead, the entity that was to make that choice was to be one that was free of any obligation to anyone —that is, the electors themselves.

In Chiafalo, however, the Supreme Court unanimously resolved that history had overtaken the Framers’ design. Nine justices agreed that even if the Framers had assumed that “electors” would be free to cast a vote however they chose, an emerging presumption of democratic control had displaced that original design. Whatever they originally expected, the court held, there was nothing in their words that constrained the power of the state to ensure that it was the choice of the people that would ultimately decide how the electors would vote. Elector discretion had been displaced by democracy. “Here,” as Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the closing line of her opinion, “[w]e the people rule.”

If the electors have lost their superpowers to an emerging democratic consensus, then legislatures must have lost them as well. It would be a complete perversion of the Framers’ design to remove the constitutional discretion of electors but accept a constitutionally unconstrained power in the state legislatures. The framers expressly decided against that obviously corrupt design: “You want Pennsylvania’s electoral votes? How about more tariffs for steel?” And if the justification for ignoring their choice in Chiafalo was democracy, that same justification must now mean that the legislatures have no special power to deviate from the choice of the people, at least once that choice is made. If “the people” constrain the electors, so too must “the people” constrain the legislatures.

Applied in a principled way, Chiafalo changes the scope of any legislative superpower. Maybe in the context of the precise question raised in Bush v. Gore, there remains a presumption in favor of legislative text over judicial constructions of that text. But Chiafalo must mean that state legislatures cannot now act against the vote of the people any more than presidential electors can.

Thankfully, it appears very unlikely that any legislature will accept Mark Levin’s challenge, and select a slate contrary to the votes of its people. But if any legislature were to take up the call, the Supreme Court would be asked to review that unprecedented act. Its ruling should be clear that this move is illegal. Prominent originalist scholars have noted how far Chiafalo strayed from the framing design. It would be extraordinary now if, in the name of originalism, the justices would sanction an even greater perversion of the original design. The greatest charge against originalism is partisan selectivity. We do not believe that selectivity is inherent to originalism. But few would agree if, after ignoring the Framers in Chiafalo, the Supreme Court invoked the Framers now to defeat a candidate who has won an absolute majority of the public’s vote. Whatever else that result would say, it would certainly not communicate that “[w]e the people rule.”

[ahhrunforthehills]

I could be wrong here, but I believe the hypothetical situation would be:

- Pennsylvania's democratic governor submits his list of Democratic electors to D.C (since his guy won based on the counts).
- At the same time, Pennsylvania's republican state legislature submits their list of Republican electors to D.C. (since their guy won after subtracting the contested counts).

Anyone who voted either Republican or Democrat is having their vote recognized. Both governing bodies are simply submitting "their guy" based on what they consider to be "legal votes". When this happens, the electoral votes for that state are tossed.

Like I said, I could be wrong... but that was my understanding.

[doodle]

And if there indeed is no right for a citizen to vote for President, AND there is no express or implicit obligation for a state legislature to select electors based on state popular vote..... then why has it traditionally been done that way thus far? And why do we hold a popular vote?

Why do we bother to study or become skilled at anything if the consensus of internet geniuses knows everything and can overturn all knowledge?

[Tortoise]

I'm not that smart, but at least I know when I'm talking out of my ass. Many people on this forum are now constitutional legal scholars it seems...as well as experienced virologists. I don't think what people are talking about with regards to electors has any basis in present legal reality.

Is that your expert legal opinion, doodle?

I must have missed the memo that declared you to be the only forum member qualified to correctly define “present legal reality.”

[doodle]

I could be wrong here, but I believe the hypothetical situation would be:

- Pennsylvania's democratic governor submits his list of Democratic electors to D.C (since his guy won based on the counts).
- At the same time, Pennsylvania's republican state legislature submits their list of Republican electors to D.C. (since their guy won after subtracting the contested counts).

Anyone who voted either Republican or Democrat is having their vote recognized. Both governing bodies are simply submitting "their guy" based on what they consider to be "legal votes". When this happens, the electoral votes for that state are tossed.

Like I said, I could be wrong... but that was my understanding.

I'm not experienced enough to make that call, but my gut reaction is that something like that might work in QAnon world...but not in reality. If in fact it does work then the supreme court is going to make the decision shortly I guess whether or not we are actually a democracy ..according to legal interpretation I read, it's seems like a Steve Bannon wet dream...that's about it.

[Xan]

glenn, there seems to be a lot of confusion on your part about voting for President, which is very common these days.

The state legislatures choose the Electors. Period. There is no right to vote for President.

Xan,
I *think* I understand the process. To me the issue that you are speaking of comes down to whether or not a state legislature chooses and sends a slate of electors that will vote in the electoral college in a manner consistent with the popular vote of that particular state. Traditionally they do. While there have been limited cases of "faithless" electors, I do not believe there has been a case where a state has appointed a slate of electors submitted by the party that lost the popular vote of that state. Do you know otherwise? (here I am drawing a distinction between an individual elector going rogue and voting faithlessly as opposed to a state selecting the whole slate from the losing party - in my estimation two different scenarios).

On paper it may read as though a state legislature can simply do whatever it wants in terms of selecting electors, and it varies by state as to whether electors are bound or whether they can do whatever they want. In either of these circumstances, if either does so without any regard to the popular vote of the state, I think serious issues are raised including the purpose of the popular state vote in the first place.

And if there indeed is no right for a citizen to vote for President, AND there is no express or implicit obligation for a state legislature to select electors based on state popular vote..... then why has it traditionally been done that way thus far? And why do we hold a popular vote?

I'm not talking about faithless electors. It's just that there doesn't need to be a vote at all. The legislature may choose the electors by any means it wishes.

The only reason there are any popular votes for President is that the state legislatures have chosen to hold them.

[doodle]

I'm not that smart, but at least I know when I'm talking out of my ass. Many people on this forum are now constitutional legal scholars it seems...as well as experienced virologists. I don't think what people are talking about with regards to electors has any basis in present legal reality.

Is that your expert legal opinion, doodle?

I must have missed the memo that declared you to be the only forum member qualified to correctly define “present legal reality.”

Oh, I'm not...that's why I preface almost everything with statements of self doubt....except that Trump is a piece of shit....that is unassailable fact.

[ahhrunforthehills]

glenn, there seems to be a lot of confusion on your part about voting for President, which is very common these days.

The state legislatures choose the Electors. Period. There is no right to vote for President.

Xan,
I *think* I understand the process. To me the issue that you are speaking of comes down to whether or not a state legislature chooses and sends a slate of electors that will vote in the electoral college in a manner consistent with the popular vote of that particular state. Traditionally they do. While there have been limited cases of "faithless" electors, I do not believe there has been a case where a state has appointed a slate of electors submitted by the party that lost the popular vote of that state. Do you know otherwise? (here I am drawing a distinction between an individual elector going rogue and voting faithlessly as opposed to a state selecting the whole slate from the losing party - in my estimation two different scenarios).

On paper it may read as though a state legislature can simply do whatever it wants in terms of selecting electors, and it varies by state as to whether electors are bound or whether they can do whatever they want. In either of these circumstances, if either does so without any regard to the popular vote of the state, I think serious issues are raised including the purpose of the popular state vote in the first place.

And if there indeed is no right for a citizen to vote for President, AND there is no express or implicit obligation for a state legislature to select electors based on state popular vote..... then why has it traditionally been done that way thus far? And why do we hold a popular vote?

I'm not talking about faithless electors. It's just that there doesn't need to be a vote at all. The legislature may choose the electors by any means it wishes.

The only reason there are any popular votes for President is that the state legislatures have chosen to hold them.

This seems correct to me. The Supreme Court even acknowledged this when they reviewed the Pennsylvania issue before the election. It is up to the state legislature. If the people of that state do not like the rules the state legislature has on the books, the logic is that you can vote them out and vote in people that share your feelings. That is how our "democracy" is designed for better or worse.

Here is a quote:

The United States Constitution and Federal law do not prescribe the method of appointment other than
requiring that electors must be appointed on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November (November
8, 2016). In most States, the political parties nominate slates of electors at State conventions or central
committee meetings. Then the citizens of each State appoint the electors by popular vote in the state-wide
general election. However, State laws on the appointment of electors may vary.
Under the Constitution, State legislatures have broad powers to direct the process for selecting electors,
with one exception: Article II, section 1, clause 2 provides that “no Senator, Representative, or Person
holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States” may be appointed as an elector. It is not
settled as to whether this restriction extends to all Federal officials regardless of their level of authority or
the capacity in which they serve, but we advise the States that the restriction could disqualify any person
who holds a Federal government job from serving as an elector.

Source: https://www.archives.gov/files/electora ... ctions.pdf

[doodle]

Has the supreme court not weighed in on this issue? It is my understanding that they have and that their interpretation of the framers intent is different from the conclusions that I'm am reading people reach here.

[ahhrunforthehills]

Has the supreme court not weighed in on this issue? It is my understanding that they have and that their interpretation of the framers intent is different from the conclusions that I'm am reading people reach here.

Good question doodle. I would assume you would first need for the House to nominate Trump and then have the Democrats challenge it. Otherwise, I would think there would be no standing for the democrats to bring the lawsuit.

This is obviously a completely separate issue from the election "fraud" that Trump claims to be the victim of. The Supreme Court can always jump into that separately if they feel it warranted.

[glennds]

I'm not talking about faithless electors. It's just that there doesn't need to be a vote at all. The legislature may choose the electors by any means it wishes.

The only reason there are any popular votes for President is that the state legislatures have chosen to hold them.

I have not researched other states, but I can tell you in Arizona a statewide presidential election is presumed in the course of choosing electors, and statute requires that those electors cast their electoral college votes for the candidate for President and candidate for Vice-President who jointly receive the highest number of votes in the statewide canvass issued by the Secretary of State.
Once the election has been held, I do not believe the (Arizona) state legislature can choose electors by any means it wishes since it is now bound by its own law.

So at least for Arizona, and for the 2020 election, there does need to be a statewide vote and the legislature does not have the ability to choose the electors by any means it wishes. For future elections, I believe the law could be changed by legislative action.

Please correct me if I am wrong on this.

A.R. S. 16-212
A. On the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, 1956, and quadrennially thereafter, there shall be elected a number of presidential electors equal to the number of United States senators and representatives in Congress from this state.

B. After the secretary of state issues the statewide canvass containing the results of a presidential election, the presidential electors of this state shall cast their electoral college votes for the candidate for president and the candidate for vice president who jointly received the highest number of votes in this state as prescribed in the canvass.

C. A presidential elector who knowingly refuses to cast that elector's electoral college vote as prescribed in subsection B of this section is no longer eligible to hold the office of presidential elector and that office is deemed and declared vacant by operation of law.  The chairperson of the state committee of the political party represented by that elector shall appoint a person who is otherwise qualified to be a presidential elector.  The replacement presidential elector shall cast the elector's electoral college vote as prescribed by this section.  Notwithstanding § 16-344 and any other statute, the nomination paper and affidavit of qualification of the replacement presidential elector may be completed and filed with the secretary of state as soon as is practicable after the presidential elector's appointment.

[glennds]

And if there indeed is no right for a citizen to vote for President, AND there is no express or implicit obligation for a state legislature to select electors based on state popular vote..... then why has it traditionally been done that way thus far? And why do we hold a popular vote?

Why do we bother to study or become skilled at anything if the consensus of internet geniuses knows everything and can overturn all knowledge?

I was only asking because I sincerely want to know the answer.

[glennds]

I'm not talking about faithless electors. It's just that there doesn't need to be a vote at all. The legislature may choose the electors by any means it wishes.

The only reason there are any popular votes for President is that the state legislatures have chosen to hold them.

Xan,
I have not researched other states, but I can tell you in Arizona a statewide presidential election is presumed in the course of choosing electors, and statute requires that those electors cast their electoral college votes for the candidate for President and candidate for Vice-President who jointly receive the highest number of votes in the statewide canvass issued by the Secretary of State.
Once the election has been held, I do not believe the (Arizona) state legislature can choose electors by any means it wishes since it is now bound by its own law.

So at least for Arizona, and for the 2020 election, there does need to be a statewide vote and the legislature does not have the ability to choose the electors by any means it wishes. For future elections, I believe the law could be changed by legislative action.

Please correct me if I am wrong on this.

A.R. S. 16-212
A. On the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, 1956, and quadrennially thereafter, there shall be elected a number of presidential electors equal to the number of United States senators and representatives in Congress from this state.

B. After the secretary of state issues the statewide canvass containing the results of a presidential election, the presidential electors of this state shall cast their electoral college votes for the candidate for president and the candidate for vice president who jointly received the highest number of votes in this state as prescribed in the canvass.

C. A presidential elector who knowingly refuses to cast that elector's electoral college vote as prescribed in subsection B of this section is no longer eligible to hold the office of presidential elector and that office is deemed and declared vacant by operation of law.  The chairperson of the state committee of the political party represented by that elector shall appoint a person who is otherwise qualified to be a presidential elector.  The replacement presidential elector shall cast the elector's electoral college vote as prescribed by this section.  Notwithstanding § 16-344 and any other statute, the nomination paper and affidavit of qualification of the replacement presidential elector may be completed and filed with the secretary of state as soon as is practicable after the presidential elector's appointment.

[Cortopassi]

What has the US become, that this is being discussed? Was this discussed as an option in other close recent elections?

This is nuts. And would bring about the civil war tech comments about.

"What has the US become,"

A BANANA REPUBLIC....