Talking about the United States, how would electoral votes be given for states that are not under U.S. Control? I don't think this ever happened in American history, the closest was in 1812 I believe. How would electors decide their vote if a state has no popular vote, or would it not count at all?
How does the Electoral College count for states occupied by a foreign power?
- Thread starter Prussian1871
- Start date
Napoleonrules
Banned
West Virginia is a close example
West Virginia, Missouri, and Kentucky during the Civil War is a prime example. If a state were ever overrun then I assume whatever part of it would either A) act as if the population that remains is the whole of the state. B) remove itself as a separate new state.
West Virginia, Missouri, and Kentucky during the Civil War is a prime example. If a state were ever overrun then I assume whatever part of it would either A) act as if the population that remains is the whole of the state. B) remove itself as a separate new state.
The Civil War provides a real life example of such a scenario, the eleven states that had seceded and formed the Confederacy did not vote in the election of 1864, so their electoral votes were not counted towards the total number or the total number needed to win the college and the election.
Would there be a difference between Union states being occupied versus states who willingly seceded being occupied? If mean would Britain occupying Maine be seen in the same way as the Confederates occupying Virginia?
Napoleonrules
Banned
Even if the South's electoral votes were counted for purposes of a majority-
Actually Tennessee and Louisiana did vote in the single presidential election that occurred during the Civil War, though later on their electoral votes were not counted I believe, but it didn't matter anyways, they were for Lincoln and would have added to his count.
Anyways, even if you add up all the Southern electoral votes and make the majority based on the total of all states, Lincoln still won. All the South could be added to McClellan and he'd lose.
Actually Tennessee and Louisiana did vote in the single presidential election that occurred during the Civil War, though later on their electoral votes were not counted I believe, but it didn't matter anyways, they were for Lincoln and would have added to his count.
Anyways, even if you add up all the Southern electoral votes and make the majority based on the total of all states, Lincoln still won. All the South could be added to McClellan and he'd lose.
I would imagine that, in the case of a state being invaded/occupied completely, some sort of "government in exile" would exist. Since the method of selecting electors is left to the states, whatever way that body decided to use to make a selection would be used to cast their votes. Since Congress would adjudicate between and contested or competing claims, the de facto answer would be that the EC count would be decided by the US Congress.
Yep. As long as you don't discriminate by race or religion, basically, the states can choose any method they want. A state could choose to have an election to choose their electors, where the only allowed voters were left-handed dog-catchers.
So, a 'government-in-exile' simply appointing their electors is perfectly feasible.
OTOH, how the HECK do you get a US State under foreign occupation!?!?!?
By the time an area gets to be 'State' sized, it's too difficult for any foreign invader to take and hold. OK, it can be done, if early enough (Louisiana during an alt-War of 1812, maybe, but that's about the 'best' you could do. And THAT would only work because Louisiana had a sizable percentage of its population that wasn't entirely happy with US rule (all the French and Spanish, all the slaves...).
I didn't mean occupy as a peace deal. I mean't if during a Presidential Election, people in a state are unable to vote due to a foreign military being in said state during a war. That's it. I'm not talking about what if a state got annexed. I'd just like to know how the electoral votes would be decided in such a case.
Anyway I've heard some good answers here that give me a good idea on it. Basically either the votes won't count, or the electors figure a way to decide the vote.
Napoleonrules
Banned
No, a state CAN'T fully decide the manner in which electors are decided
The Constitution requires the Federal govt to maintain and uphold a broad based democratic republic form of govt in each state (even in NH which is the only state to have in its state constitution the specific right allowing for the people to violently overthrow the govt, you may not be violating a state law but you will catch Federal prosecution). A state cannot put forth the requirement of only left-handed dog catchers can vote for president. The 14th and 24th amendments have been broadly interpreted by the US Supreme Court in order to strike down more than just race discrimination or poll-taxes but any thing that would stop any person from voting- such as property requirements, previous voting record or record of voting by parents, literacy tests, income requirements, career. It has also been the basis for striking down voter id laws in the past. It's right-wing conspiracy talk that spreads this notion to the general public that only specific minorities have these magical civil rights. All Americans have equal civil rights and no minority or special group has any that the others do not; with the exception in some states that you can still not be hired or can be fired simply for being LGBT, but even in those states a white person CAN sue for being fired for being white, it isn't that one race has the protection and another does not. Just as a LGBT can be fired in Missouri for being LGBT so can a straight man or woman be fired for simply being straight and it is not a civil rights issue.
The Constitution requires the Federal govt to maintain and uphold a broad based democratic republic form of govt in each state (even in NH which is the only state to have in its state constitution the specific right allowing for the people to violently overthrow the govt, you may not be violating a state law but you will catch Federal prosecution). A state cannot put forth the requirement of only left-handed dog catchers can vote for president. The 14th and 24th amendments have been broadly interpreted by the US Supreme Court in order to strike down more than just race discrimination or poll-taxes but any thing that would stop any person from voting- such as property requirements, previous voting record or record of voting by parents, literacy tests, income requirements, career. It has also been the basis for striking down voter id laws in the past. It's right-wing conspiracy talk that spreads this notion to the general public that only specific minorities have these magical civil rights. All Americans have equal civil rights and no minority or special group has any that the others do not; with the exception in some states that you can still not be hired or can be fired simply for being LGBT, but even in those states a white person CAN sue for being fired for being white, it isn't that one race has the protection and another does not. Just as a LGBT can be fired in Missouri for being LGBT so can a straight man or woman be fired for simply being straight and it is not a civil rights issue.
B-29_Bomber
Banned
I would reckon it'd be dependent on how disruptive the occupation is to the general running of the country because Elections take months to organize
If it's merely a foreign power occupying Hawaii, it's not all that disruptive and they'd probably figure something out or just ignore Hawaii for that election cycle.
But if it's more like the Worldwar series where a week could be the difference of one or more states being occupied, then they may well postpone the election outright until the war ended.
If it's merely a foreign power occupying Hawaii, it's not all that disruptive and they'd probably figure something out or just ignore Hawaii for that election cycle.
But if it's more like the Worldwar series where a week could be the difference of one or more states being occupied, then they may well postpone the election outright until the war ended.
The consensus commenters upthread are correct to the best of my understanding, with one quibble: the Constitution requires the electors to meet and vote in their respective state capitals, which is tricky if the capital is under foreign occupation. This could be ignored at Congress's pleasure (no objection in Congress while tallying the votes, or objection overruled by a majority of both houses, means the votes get counted), or it could be deemed that the seat of the government-in-exile is the current state capital. Congress could even cede an acre or so of Washington, DC to the occupied state so the government-in-exile could meet on (nominally) it's own territory.
Tangentially, the phrasing of the OP's question reminds me of a facetious motion made by George Washington at the Constitutional Convention that would have forbidden foreign enemies from invading the United States with an army of more than 3,000 troops, in response to a motion capping the size of the federal army at 3,000.
Tangentially, the phrasing of the OP's question reminds me of a facetious motion made by George Washington at the Constitutional Convention that would have forbidden foreign enemies from invading the United States with an army of more than 3,000 troops, in response to a motion capping the size of the federal army at 3,000.
Right. You can't exclude women or gays or blacks from a general vote. You CAN however, choose to select those electors by other means. A vote of the legislature, forming a committee, etc. If your committee is all the left-handed dogcatchers in the State, that's perfectly legal under the Constitution.
Left handed RED-HAIRED dogcatchers would exclude blacks, so would be illegal.
If the Civil War is used as precedent, those States simply do not appoint Electors or take part in elections as long as they are under occupation.
Napoleonrules
Banned
You can't exclude ANYONE from a general vote, and that's actually the only reason you can't exclude a LGBT (there is no protection for discrimination based on LGBT, you can legally in most states discriminate, it's sad but true); I hate when people only mention the minorities or women as if it is only minorities, civil rights go both ways, despite conservatives thinking whites are so not covered. And no you can't limit your electors in such a manner as that violates the 14th, 17th, and 24th amendments and the precedents of the SCOTUS rulings based on those amendments and their "penumbra".
There are explicit textual provisions forbidding disenfranchisement on the basis of race, color, previous condition of servitude (15th amendment), sex (19th amendment), failure to pay poll tax or other taxes (24th amendment), or age if age is >= 18 (26th amendment). There are other textual provisions (section 2 of the 14th amendment) that reduce congressional (and thus electoral college apportionment) in proportion to the number of adult male citizens over 21 who are disenfranchised for reasons other than criminal conviction or participation in rebellion.
The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment has also been read as putting limits on what kinds of restrictions can be put on voting rights, but in general, equal protection cases rely on either facial or as-applied discrimination against a "suspect classification" (race, national origin, religion) or "quasi-suspect classification" (gender, legitimacy of birth). If the provision discriminates on a non-suspect class, the court generally applies the very deferential "rational basis" test, which merely requires that the justices be able to imagine a vaguely plausible justification related to a legitimate state interest.
Disenfranchising everyone but left-handed dogcatchers probably wouldn't fly, since it's hard to imagine a rational basis for the disenfranchisement, and because as-applied it is likely to be found to discriminate indirectly against suspect classifications (many interpretations of Islamic Law consider dogs to be unclean (religion), and many Middle-Eastern cultures strongly discourage the use of the left hand for hygiene reasons (national origin)). And if it did get upheld, the state would lose most of its electoral votes under section 2 of the 14th amendment.
On the other hand, an electoral college law intended to work around most or all of the state being under foreign occupation is much more likely to fly. It's narrowly tailored to serve a legitimate public purpose (holding elections as best as possible in the face of a foreign invasion), so there's definitely a rational basis, and depending on the details, it's likely to pass muster under intermediate or strict scrutiny as well. The apportionment clause of the 14th amendment might still cause problems: it could be interpreted that the citizens of the state in occupied territory are eligible to vote but are being physically prevented from doing so by factors outside the state's control; or it could be interpreted that appointment of electors by the in-exile state legislature indirectly enfranchises those who elected the legislature in the first place; or the state could be reduced to the minimum of three electoral votes because almost all of its citizens are unable to vote.
Worth considering that this scenario might predate many of the amendments in question. And that discussions of modern politics are best left to a different part of the forum.
Right. But there is NO provision for a GENERAL VOTE in the Constitution.