Miscellaneous desk
< June 16	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 17

The Bankers magazine

Is "The Bankers magazine"[1] mentioned in Law of holes the same publication as The Banker? Should it be an entry in Banker (disambiguation)? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear to be a different publication. See here, published 19 years before the Banker was launched (and that's vol. 83). Rojomoke (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania electoral College 2000

Hi, I will be quick: if an electoral College elector had simply written "Al Gore" on a ballot, would the vote still be valid? Because I imagine, although I'm not sure, that some voters actually wrote the abbreviated name. Thank you. https://www.google.it/search?q=pennsylvania+electoral+college+2000&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiqgfeL6YjqAhUuM-wKHQKTA-0Q2-cCegQIABAA&oq=pennsylvania+electoral+college+2000&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQDFAAWABg2YgBaABwAHgAgAEAiAEAkgEAmAEAqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWc&sclient=img&ei=lQjqXuriKK7msAeCpo7oDg&bih=985&biw=1964#imgrc=50SACgaPgXrhuM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A given state's electors, at their meeting in December or whenever, would put together a list of their votes in an appropriate way to submit the list to the US House. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the curious, here is a Pennsylvania Electoral College 2000 ballot paper. I'm surprised that they don't have the options pre-printed. Alansplodge (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, the electors can vote for anyone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this very issue before the U.S. Supreme Court, as we speak? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. That's why I said "in theory". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "maybe"? There is -- or is not -- a current Supreme Court case on this? I thought I remember hearing something like that. But not 100% sure. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to Faithless elector, there is a case pending, but the Court has not ruled yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Supreme Court case was whether to overturn fines levied on electors who had voted contrary to the wishes of their state's voters. In theory, electors can vote for whoever they like, but: "All but two states — Maine and Nebraska — have a winner-take-all system that awards all the state’s electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote . And 32 states have measures that require presidential electors to vote as they had promised" Los Angeles Times; May 13, 2020. The Supreme Court decision was not to intervene in the state's powers. Alansplodge (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Faithless elector, there are a small number of states which go beyond simple fines, and instead attempt to invalidate the results of those who vote the wrong way or otherwise stop it from happening completely, including Colorado where it came about Faithless electors in the 2016 United States presidential election. There is a case before the Supreme Court Colorado Department of State v. Baca before the Supreme Court, now separate due to the recusal of Sonia Sotomayor in the Baca case,from Chiafalo v. Washington which deals with the fines. However, according to [2], Pennsylvania isn't one of those states with measure which tries to discourage or directly prevent a faithless elector. Instead they simply get presidential candidates to provide the list of electors and assume they will choose people who aren't likely to vote the wrong way. I expect things were the same in 2000 too. So it isn't simply in theory, the Pennsylvania electors were free to vote for whoever they wanted. That said, we're only talking about restrictions based on who they were "supposed" to vote for. They would still have to comply with other legal aspects. Notably it seems likely they couldn't have vote for both a President and Vice-president who were from Pennsylvania per the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Likewise trying to vote for someone who isn't 35 or a natural born citizen would seem to be a problem. (Whether their vote is invalid or the person simply couldn't become president even if elected.) Nil Einne (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the original question. Are they talking about an elector listing "Al Gore" instead of "Albert Gore" on the ballot form? Is that the question? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what it seems to be. However, the OP only edits every week or two, so by the time he comes back here, this section may well have been archived. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought he was known -- and referred to -- as "Al" Gore. I don't think I've ever heard "Albert" Gore before today. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anything in the Constitution which dictates exactly what the list of electoral votes has to look like. That could be up to House rules. And since the states have been doing this for well over two centuries now, presumably they've got the procedure down pat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the illustration in this article,[3] the candidates were listed (in Florida, anyway) as Al Gore & Joe Lieberman; George W. Bush & Dick Cheney; Pat Buchanan & Ezola Foster; etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]