All votes not cast on election day are unconstitutional

[Michael Bush]

Article II
Section 1
Paragraph 5
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
----------------------------------
Election day, of course is NOT choosing the President.  It is choosing the electors that will elect the President. and "which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."  Congress is to set the day for both choosing the Electors and the day on which the Electors shall give their votes.  And it is one day that is the same throughout the US.  It's Election Day.  Not election week.  Not election month.  Not election months.

[Ben Framed]

All votes not cast on election day are unconstitutional

Mr Bush, has the allowing of voting on any other day, than the one day, (election day), been challenged as you posted in your OP?




.

[Terri Yaki]

To whom are they referring when they say, "electors"? If those are the electoral college, it could have different meaning than if they mean The People.

[Kathyp]

I think they get around that by counting and announcing the count on election day, but they have not even been good at that.  With all the tech we have, we are getting worse at this and not better.

[Michael Bush]

It's clear that they are referring to both the election of the electors to wit: "The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors" and the voting of the electors: "and the Day on which they shall give their Votes".  There is NOTHING in the constitution that implies that the people have anything to do with electing the president. Article II Section 1 Paragraph 2: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct".  There is no mention of people voting or not, but the "time of chusing the Electors" is set by the U.S. Congress.  There doesn't have to even be an election per se.  The State legislator can choose any method including drawing straws.  However much they keep selling the illusion that you are voting for a president, you are not.  You are voting for electors who will elect a president because your state decided to choose their electors in that manner.  The state Legislature could decide that only they will vote for the electors and the people don't get to vote at all as far as the president is concerned and that would be constitutional.  You could also make the argument that the U.S. Congress gets to pick "the time of the chusing the Electors" so the States have to choose them (i.e. determine who they are) on November 5 since that's the day the Congress chose.  So any state that can't come to a decision on Nov 5 (the day chosen by Congress) shouldn't get to vote in the actual election (by the electoral college).

They have thoroughly sold people on the idea that they are voting for and electing the president.  The people are not, and never have.

[Terri Yaki]

You're way more knowledgeable on the topic than I am but I do find it interesting. Oddly enough, when it was in my curriculum, I hadn't much interest. 

I have heard that in some states, the electors are bound by the vote of The People and some they are not and I do not know what it is for my own state, let alone others. In PA, our voting process is delineated in our Constitution and can only be changed through the process to change our Constitution. During the scamdemic, our legislature change our voting process to include no excuse mail-in voting, which had previously required a legitimate excuse to obtain. Act 77 is what that change is called in the event anyone wants to delve into it. I have heard argument on both sides of it being done legally/illegally but once again, it's above my paygrade.

[Michael Bush]

The state legislature can choose who they want.  I question the constitutionality of prosecuting the electors if they don?t vote a certain way.  There would be no point in having the electoral college vote if they are bound by law to vote a certain way.

[beesnweeds]

Early voting started today in NY.  Went with my family and couldn't believe the lines, wrapped around a basketball court twice and out the door!  We couldn't vote with over an hour wait to even get near a machine.  I live in a red district and there were only 4 voting machines.  I am hoping that blue districts don't have more machines set up, but I won't be surprised.

[Michael Bush]

If you read Article II it's obvious that our forefathers never imagined anything that resembles our presidential elections.  I don't think they even thought that the populace would vote for President.  Only congressmen were to be elected by the people.  Senators were to be elected by the State Legislature and Electors by whatever means the legislature chose.  I imagine they thought the legislature would choose them.  There is certainly no indication of a popular election for President.

[Kathyp]

If you read Article II it's obvious that our forefathers never imagined anything that resembles our presidential elections.

no one in the world would imagine the kind of elections we have.

[gww]

The 26th amendment wouldn't mean much if there was no one to vote for.  Pretty sure it is constitutional to have elections like we do.  The fact that 4 amendments were added to the constitution by processes provided by the constitution shows that lowering democracy is not its goals not matter who is arguing  differently.

[Kathyp]

Pretty sure it is constitutional to have elections like we do.

You can't think that the way we are doing things is good, though. Even 3rd world countries manage to have cleaner and faster elections. We wouldn't have to endure months of commercials, phone calls, etc. if we had one voting day and then the results were posted within a day...like most counties in the world manage. That, and security tightening like voter ID would go a long way toward making people more trusting of results.

[gww]

I seen a bunch of supposed history of law in this thread.  The history of elections and getting results and people even knowing with in six months of who won might seem quaint today if compared to history.  Took months in the 1800s at times.  Some republican states have made things worse by making the counting of early votes come after the day of vote count.  Trying to make the ballots be counted by hand with limited counters is what one of the crazy election boards tried.  I mean, I hear you but am not sure we see the problems as being the same.  citizens united decision has not made campaigns shorter or cheaper.  That is one reason why I get so many stupid text.

[Michael Bush]

>Pretty sure it is constitutional to have elections like we do.

It's constitutional for "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct"  and if that is a popular vote of the state, that's not unconstitutional, but any choosing taking place other than the day chosen by the U.S. Congress is and congress chose the first Tuesday of November in years evenly divisible by four.  So if the election is held differently than the manner decided by that state's legislature and if the vote is held on a different day, those are violations of the constitution.

[Kathyp]

Took months in the 1800s at times

.

They didn't have computers, phones, and cars. It took time to get the info out, but not time to get the vote done. We all the advantages of tech and we can't get the vote done, or counted, in a timely way.

And this early voting thing really needs to be curtailed. Citizens United is not why you are getting so many calls. The difference between the old way and the modern way is that we don't have people knocking on our doors day and night. Now we get texts and phone calls. The advantage to those reaching out is that they can get more of us that live in the sticks now 

Like it or not, there was a legit reason for Citizens United. There would have been no reason if the federal government stayed in its box.

[buzzbee]

If we had voting on one day only,early voters may have lesser chance of "buyers "remorse".
Imagine all the stuff that comes to light between first day and last day voters.

[Michael Bush]

I'm pretty sure that was the concept of having it all on the same day throughout the US.  You can only take a snapshot of an every changing landscape of feelings and ideas and facts that come to light.  If you drag it out it becomes way too complex, unpredictable and manipulable based on the unfolding outcome.  You can wait to cheat until you see you need to...