RESTARTING ELECTION REFORM
An “Electoral College Committee” Shown below are proposed statutory provisions that establish an alternative process for selecting electoral college delegates. As shown, “Electoral College Electors” are all state election officials and the appointed electors form an “Electoral College Committee”. This committee is presided over by Oregon’s chief elections officer - the Secretary of State. “Inclusion”/“Exclusion” of votes. Shown below are the statutory provisions that define how the winners of the primary and general election are determined and certified. Note that in both cases, the outcome is determined by canvassing the popular vote - not just in Oregon, but the entire presidential election worldwide. The canvass of the popular vote for president could actually be very complicated. It's likely that many compromises will need to be made every election cycle to insure free and fair elections in both the short and long terms. Rather than delegating authority to make these decisions to inherently political institutions like congress, the state legislature or the U.S. Supreme Court, a small group of election officials is appointed to act on behalf of voters. The provisions shown above are deliberately worded to give the Electoral College Committee absolute authority to analyze the vote and determine the winners. Note: 1. Paragraph (a) authorizes the committee to recognize worldwide U.S. territories like Puerto Rico and Guam. The committee has the authority to make this recognition regardless of any federal or state law and regardless of any federal or state court rulings. The recognition is based on the "belief" of the committee. 2. Paragraph (b) authorizes the committee to exclude the votes from any district if the election process was not "free". Once again, this determination is based on the "belief" of the committee and there is no obligation to reconcile this belief with any contradictory federal/state law or the rulings of any court. 3. Paragraph (c) authorizes the committee to exclude votes if the election process was not "fair". The best example is the 2000 presidential race in Florida between Al Gore and George W. Bush. The Electoral College Committee in Oregon could have - and probably would have, excluded the votes from Florida because of the hanging chad problem. Note that excluding votes has the practical effect of calling the state contest a "draw". 4. The committee need not exclude the votes from an entire state if there is corruption in a single district. 5. The committee is never required to exclude any votes. The committee has full authority to choose the best course of action to insure free and fair elections. In 2000, a "butterfly" ballot corrupted the election contest for U.S. President in Florida. Would excluding the results have lead to a “fairer” overall outcome? 6. Who decided that major party nominees get to pick the vice president? The winner of the general election could be President with the runner up Vice President. We could also hold a separate election for Vice President.
A NEW PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY
CORVALLIS, OREGON 17 MARCH 2018
RESTARTING ELECTION REFORM
An “Electoral College Committee” Shown below are proposed statutory provisions that establish an alternative process for selecting electoral college delegates. As shown, “Electoral College Electors” are all state election officials and the appointed electors form an “Electoral College Committee”. This committee is presided over by Oregon’s chief elections officer - the Secretary of State. “Inclusion”/“Exclusion” of votes. Shown below are the statutory provisions that define how the winners of the primary and general election are determined and certified. Note that in both cases, the outcome is determined by canvassing the popular vote - not just in Oregon, but the entire presidential election worldwide. The canvass of the popular vote for president could actually be very complicated. It's likely that many compromises will need to be made every election cycle to insure free and fair elections in both the short and long terms. Rather than delegating authority to make these decisions to inherently political institutions like congress, the state legislature or the U.S. Supreme Court, a small group of election officials is appointed to act on behalf of voters. The provisions shown above are deliberately worded to give the Electoral College Committee absolute authority to analyze the vote and determine the winners. Note: 1. Paragraph (a) authorizes the committee to recognize worldwide U.S. territories like Puerto Rico and Guam. The committee has the authority to make this recognition regardless of any federal or state law and regardless of any federal or state court rulings. The recognition is based on the "belief" of the committee. 2. Paragraph (b) authorizes the committee to exclude the votes from any district if the election process was not "free". Once again, this determination is based on the "belief" of the committee and there is no obligation to reconcile this belief with any contradictory federal/state law or the rulings of any court. 3. Paragraph (c) authorizes the committee to exclude votes if the election process was not "fair". The best example is the 2000 presidential race in Florida between Al Gore and George W. Bush. The Electoral College Committee in Oregon could have - and probably would have, excluded the votes from Florida because of the hanging chad problem. Note that excluding votes has the practical effect of calling the state contest a "draw". 4. The committee need not exclude the votes from an entire state if there is corruption in a single district. 5. The committee is never required to exclude any votes. The committee has full authority to choose the best course of action to insure free and fair elections. In 2000, a "butterfly" ballot corrupted the election contest for U.S. President in Florida. Would excluding the results have lead to a “fairer” overall outcome? 6. Who decided that major party nominees get to pick the vice president? The winner of the general election could be President with the runner up Vice President. We could also hold a separate election for Vice President.
CORVALLIS, OREGON 17 MARCH 2018
A NEW PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY
RESTARTING ELECTION REFORM
An “Electoral College Committee” Shown below are proposed statutory provisions that establish an alternative process for selecting electoral college delegates. As shown, “Electoral College Electors” are all state election officials and the appointed electors form an “Electoral College Committee”. This committee is presided over by Oregon’s chief elections officer - the Secretary of State. “Inclusion”/“Exclusion” of votes. Shown below are the statutory provisions that define how the winners of the primary and general election are determined and certified. Note that in both cases, the outcome is determined by canvassing the popular vote - not just in Oregon, but the entire presidential election worldwide. The canvass of the popular vote for president could actually be very complicated. It's likely that many compromises will need to be made every election cycle to insure free and fair elections in both the short and long terms. Rather than delegating authority to make these decisions to inherently political institutions like congress, the state legislature or the U.S. Supreme Court, a small group of election officials is appointed to act on behalf of voters. The provisions shown above are deliberately worded to give the Electoral College Committee absolute authority to analyze the vote and determine the winners. Note: 1. Paragraph (a) authorizes the committee to recognize worldwide U.S. territories like Puerto Rico and Guam. The committee has the authority to make this recognition regardless of any federal or state law and regardless of any federal or state court rulings. The recognition is based on the "belief" of the committee. 2. Paragraph (b) authorizes the committee to exclude the votes from any district if the election process was not "free". Once again, this determination is based on the "belief" of the committee and there is no obligation to reconcile this belief with any contradictory federal/state law or the rulings of any court. 3. Paragraph (c) authorizes the committee to exclude votes if the election process was not "fair". The best example is the 2000 presidential race in Florida between Al Gore and George W. Bush. The Electoral College Committee in Oregon could have - and probably would have, excluded the votes from Florida because of the hanging chad problem. Note that excluding votes has the practical effect of calling the state contest a "draw". 4. The committee need not exclude the votes from an entire state if there is corruption in a single district. 5. The committee is never required to exclude any votes. The committee has full authority to choose the best course of action to insure free and fair elections. In 2000, a "butterfly" ballot corrupted the election contest for U.S. President in Florida. Would excluding the results have lead to a “fairer” overall outcome? 6. Who decided that major party nominees get to pick the vice president? The winner of the general election could be President with the runner up Vice President. We could also hold a separate election for Vice President.
A NEW PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY
CORVALLIS, OREGON 17 MARCH 2018