Flag of the American Commonwealth Republics


*invisible anchor for index*



Why the Electoral College?

Elector Options Considered

The Numbers


Table: State Electors by Relative Popular Votes


*anchor for 'Intro'*


Okay, so the election has passed and we now shift from trying to prevent a questionable election to now filtering out as best we can election uncertainties. Allegations of voter fraud and irregularities in several states put granting the winning electors to a particular candidate between the two main parties in question despite the media claims of a solid winner as those states have bouts of re-counts and litigation. Such claims and evidence of electoral impropriety should be fairly and reasonably taken into account and investigated with due diligence while weeding out the frivolous and allowing for time in court without being prematurely dismissed under purely partisan concerns by judges or media. Re-counts and audits should then occur and corrected vote tallies presented to determine the final electors. However, if this process is derailed or time runs out with lingering true and accurate evidence of improper ballot counts withstanding and of sufficient magnitude to put a true winner in question, then the state legislatures should be fallbacks in the determination of the electors. After that any appeal would be made to the electors themselves as to who is the true winner or as always to whom we should entrust the presidency of the United States.

-Index- -Top- -Bottom-

*anchor for 'Why Electoral College'*

Why the Electoral College?

The Electoral College exists as a go-between the collective masses and the national powers-that-be. It is a state-by-state voting body made up of those not holding office under the U.S. It is set up that way because the founders wanted to have a barrier against the rise of a despot by the national ruling establishment or derived from the masses. The intercession of the electors who are separate and secure from these two venues provides the opportunity for them to act on their own conscience as to which presidential contender truly is the better for the interests of the Republic. This is why 'faithless' electors should not be fined for voting their conscience since the raison d'ĂȘtre of the body itself is as a final check over the qualifications of a potential occupant of the presidency. Do not the selections of prime ministers and popes have similar components in their procedure and scrutiny?

Now look around you today as to what is happening in our major cities, our universities and institutions where many people are more and more uninformed, indoctrinated and radicalized. Do we trust the electorate in such times? What about our infiltrated institutions and civic infrastructure? One alternative to the current electoral system is to let primaries become the more popular event and then from there select a president by the type of state legislators we have elected. Our earliest presidents were more chosen by state legislatures and the democratic republic persisted. If the election is indeed tainted then we should surely overturn it by invoking such methods without any compunction.

In this time of incredible stress and duress is it not time to expect our electoral college system to perform its bypass function in order to correct a faulty or compromised presidential election should that be the case? It should divert the presidency to the candidate best suited to carry us through these times and protect the Republic from the subversive forces within or outside that cajole riots and looting in our cities. Let not partisan judges, media, political machines, digital despots, corporatists and lawless mobs determine our choice but instead counter them by fully utilizing our electoral college safe mode while simultaneously introducing the principles toward reforming our election system. If the time is not now to do all this then when is it? Do we wait until the extremists take control of our government and nullify the Constitution before we ever implement our Electoral College's override? That's non sequitur!

-Index- -Top- -Bottom-

*anchor for 'Elector Options Considered*

Elector Options Considered

Do you still feel unease should some states decide to overturn their perceived usual result? If that is the case then perhaps all the states together should perform a palatable compromise that everyone could take refuge in this cycle. How about all the state legislatures agree to both honor their popular election results as best as possible sans tainted ballots while simultaneously employing an innovative fail-safe in the Electoral College? Here's how this version goes:

The states with votes still in question should let the proper channels of contention pan out but if they are deemed to fail or time runs out then such legislatures will step in with their ultimate authority and declare for the popular votes in question what those results should be or whether to include them. They can declare such results by replacing or leaning the questionable with proportions from their own vote concerning the matter or instead do same but with the ratio of the number of seats held by the two main parties in the legislature along with whom the independent and third-party seats wish to caucus with. They will however exclude third-party/independent presidential candidate tallies everywhere in order to avoid any possible last-minute spoiler hang-ups.

Now at this point all state popular vote tallies have been settled and involve only the two candidates. All legislatures and the funky D.C. will then assign the balance of each of their own elector slates between the two candidates based on the intra-proportions of their own popular vote tally. This will leave at most one elector in each state in question where the delineation between the two candidates falls. Simply round that elector out. Invoke the Electoral College using the resulting slates of electors.

Note here that the popular vote crowd is getting state-by-state slates of electors each rounded to the relative popular share of the two candidates within state and the elector slate weights in the Electoral College are actually closer to a state's population share than to each state's House + Senate weight in legislation passed through Congress. Constitutionalists are still ultimately relying on state legislatures and their electors to compensate and finalize the outcome. Republicans and Democrats are finally getting a share of electors in all states including Republicans in California and Democrats in Texas. If the legislatures act in this fashion we can possibly avoid the complaints over a Supreme Court ordered president whomever the winner. However, what if the states without serious election contention feel that they should not have to change their methods and that only the states with problems should have to take such action? Maybe only the contested states should have to split their slates between the candidates by their popular vote proportions. Then again, once some states make changes that affect the outcome then other legislatures may feel pressure to change their slates in order to compensate. What is the likelihood of all states agreeing to divvying their elector slates by their popular vote proportions? Will it be that the accusations of fraud are of biblical proportions as promised and all the contested states are turned over within the current paradigm? Let's look at some ballpark numbers for a few of these scenarios below...

-Index- -Top- -Bottom-

*anchor for 'The Numbers'*

The Numbers:

The Electoral College count minus the states claimed to be under challenge by the Trump campaign is:



The Electoral College as quoted by the untrustworthy media where they claim no electors will change despite current re-counts, audits, litigation, etc.


This elector count is from the option described earlier where each state awards its electors based on its relative popular vote results between the two main candidates while rounding off the mix elector. Here the gap between the candidates is closer. Calculation here is based on currently reported tallies as of posting before final litigation in the states to be challenged by Trump. Changes in this result would depend on the number of votes to be corrected.


A table has been made farther down for this approach using currently reported state tallies.

Note if either Maine or Nebraska exclusively decided to keep their district method then it is possible to swap an elector to Biden or Trump respectively. Tallies that are nearer 50-50 in states with odd numbers of electors make for an easier swap of an elector upon favorable corrections.

If the states without challenge to their vote tallies decide to remain the same and if only the states in question (AZ, GA, MI, NV, PA, WI) were to decide to split their slates relatively between the two main candidates as a compromise or concession to both campaigns and the litigation corrects only effectively few votes then the elector results are about:


This result is nearly a tie and within margins of either faithless electors or within determination by the correction of enough irregular votes.

What if we stay with the current elector protocols and all those states being challenged by Trump with their close leads find enough votes within to switch the majority winner? The resulting electors would be:


And if only a couple states are swung within the current projected media count and electoral protocols -- say Pennsylvania and Georgia:


Here faithless electors could change the outcome or invoke a tie to be sent to the House.

-Index- -Top- -Bottom-

*anchor for 'Conclusion'*


If legislatures do directly appoint elector slates as they should in some cases then other legislatures may react and we end up with a more patched quilt of electors for the Electoral College with various states using different criteria for their appointments making many resulting counts possible. If so things may get very interesting from here not to mention the House possibly deciding who is president.

-Index- -Top- -Bottom-

*anchor for 'Table:'*



State & Electors Biden

Biden +



AL 9 36.45% 62.15% /98.60% 36.97% 63.03% 3 6
AK 3 43.02% 53.12% /96.14% 44.75% 55.25% 1 2
AZ 11 49.25% 48.94% /98.19% 50.16% 49.84% 6 5
AR 6 34.78% 62.39% /97.17% 35.79% 64.21% 2 4
CA 55 63.59% 34.24% /97.83% 65.00% 35.00% 36 19
CO 9 55.40% 41.90% /97.30% 56.94% 43.06% 5 4
CT 7 59.24% 39.21% /98.45% 60.17% 39.83% 4 3
DE 3 58.78% 39.80% /98.58% 59.63% 40.37% 2 1
FL 29 47.76% 51.11% /98.87% 48.31% 51.69% 14 15
GA 16 49.51% 49.25% /98.76% 50.13% 49.87% 8 8
HI 4 63.73% 34.27% /98.00% 65.03% 34.97% 3 1
ID 4 33.05% 63.81% /96.86% 34.12% 65.88% 1 3
IL 20 57.83% 40.14% /97.97% 59.03% 40.97% 12 8
IN 11 40.96% 57.02% /97.98% 41.80% 58.20% 5 6
IA 6 44.89% 53.09% /97.98% 45.82% 54.18% 3 3
KS 6 41.33% 56.46% /97.79% 42.26% 57.74% 3 3
KY 8 36.17% 62.13% /98.30% 36.80% 63.20% 3 5
LA 8 39.85% 58.46% /98.31% 40.54% 59.46% 3 5
ME 4 52.89% 44.18% /97.07% 54.49% 45.51% 2 2
MD 10 65.74% 32.39% /98.13% 67.00% 33.00% 7 3
MA 11 65.64% 32.55% /98.19% 66.85% 33.15% 7 4
MI 16 50.58% 47.79% /98.37% 51.42% 48.58% 8 8
MN 10 52.39% 45.29% /97.68% 53.63% 46.37% 5 5
MS 6 41.04% 57.56% /98.60% 41.62% 58.38% 2 4
MO 10 41.26% 56.83% /98.09% 42.06% 57.94% 4 6
MT 3 40.55% 56.92% /97.47% 41.60% 58.40% 1 2
NE 5 39.38% 58.49% /97.87% 40.24% 59.76% 2 3
NV 6 50.06% 47.67% /97.73% 51.22% 48.78% 3 3
NH 4 52.86% 45.49% /98.35% 53.75% 46.25% 2 2
NJ 14 57.17% 41.28% /98.45% 58.07% 41.93% 8 6
NM 5 54.29% 43.50% /97.79% 55.52% 44.48% 3 2
NY 29 56.56% 41.80% /98.36% 57.50% 42.50% 17 12
NC 15 48.59% 49.94% /98.53% 49.31% 50.69% 7 8
ND 3 31.76% 65.11% /96.87% 32.79% 67.21% 1 2
OH 18 45.17% 53.16% /98.33% 45.94% 54.06% 8 10
OK 7 32.29% 65.37% /97.66% 33.06% 66.94% 2 5
OR 7 56.46% 40.36% /96.82% 58.31% 41.69% 4 3
PA 20 49.92% 48.76% /98.68% 50.59% 49.41% 10 10
RI 4 59.30% 38.70% /98.00% 60.51% 39.49% 2 2
SC 9 43.43% 55.11% /98.54% 44.07% 55.93% 4 5
SD 3 35.61% 61.77% /97.38% 36.57% 63.43% 1 2
TN 11 37.41% 60.73% /98.14% 38.12% 61.88% 4 7
TX 38 46.48% 52.06% /98.54% 47.17% 52.83% 18 20
UT 6 37.53% 57.94% /95.47% 39.31% 60.69% 2 4
VT 3 66.09% 30.67% /96.76% 68.30% 31.70% 2 1
VA 13 54.11% 44.00% /98.11% 55.15% 44.85% 7 6
WA 12 57.99% 38.75% /96.74% 59.94% 40.06% 7 5
WV 5 29.70% 68.63% /98.33% 30.20% 69.80% 2 3
WI 10 49.45% 48.83% /98.28% 50.32% 49.68% 5 5
WY 3 26.55% 69.94% /96.49% 27.52% 72.48% 1 2

DC 3 92.15% 5.40% /97.55% 94.46% 5.54% 3 0

TOTAL:& 275


Candidate Relative Share: Candidate Vote Share / Denominator
Denominator: Biden Vote Share + Trump Vote Share

Note that Candidate Relative Share percentages are rounded to two decimal points in the table. The Candidate Vote Shares were given as two decimal point numbers in the source table and thus so are the Denominators.

-Index- -Top- -Bottom-

*anchor for 'Links'*


'Until the mid-1800s, it was common for many state legislatures to simply appoint electors, while other states let their citizens decide on electors.'

'The Constitution doesn't require electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states, and there is no federal law that requires this. But a number of states have passed laws that threaten to punish so-called "faithless electors," who do not vote according to the state's popular vote.' ~ SARAH PRUITT | OCT 21, 2020

'In the 2016 United States presidential election, ten members of the Electoral College voted or attempted to vote for a candidate different from the ones to whom they were pledged...... Although there had been a combined total of 155 instances of individual electors voting faithlessly prior to 2016 in over two centuries of previous US presidential elections, 2016 was the first election in over a hundred years in which multiple electors worked to alter the result of the election.'

'In the days after the presidential election, President Donald Trump and Republicans have filed lawsuits in five battleground states to contest a race Trump lost to Democratic challenger and former Vice President Joe Biden.'

'Here's a quick look at noteworthy lawsuits from Trump and the Republican party, with details by state below: ~ George Petras | Updated 6:12 p.m. EST Nov. 23, 2020

'The team ran several major analyses including of voters who had moved out of state but still voted in the state they had left; voters who registered to vote using a post office box number rather than a residential address as required; voters who requested a mail-in ballot and sent it in, only for it not to be counted; voters who didn't request a mail-in ballot and didn't receive one, but discovered a vote had been cast in their name; as well as research on people who voted more than once and on those who are listed in the death index.'

"The number of questionable ballots surpasses the vote margin in at least three states right now-Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin," Braynard told The Epoch Times on Nov. 25. Those three states have a combined total of 37 electoral votes.'

"It's unfortunate, but short of a judge ordering a do-over, another election... short of that, I really don't see how you fix this," Braynard said.' ~ BY CHARLOTTE CUTHBERTSON | November 26, 2020 Updated: November 27, 2020

'In recent modern elections, there have been a dozen or more truly competitive battlegrounds which could result in many various paths to 270 electoral votes.'

'That's changed in recent years as polarization has increased, resulting in red and blue strongholds with bigger victory margins. For instance, despite the narrow popular vote margin in 2016, more than two dozen states were decided by margins of 15 percentage points or more. In 1988, when the popular vote margin was seven percentage points, there were just 17 states which were won by such big margins.'

'In 2020, many political analysts think that Wisconsin, where Democrats will hold their national convention in 2020, could prove to be the tipping point state in a close election.'

'By convincing so many of their supporters to vote by mail, the Democrats may have created a problem that could plunge the nation into a post-Election Day tangle of challenges and lawsuits that will make the Bush v. Gore nightmare of 2000 look like a picnic.' ~ JONATHAN TOBIN | 10/13/20 AT 8:00 AM EDT

'The expected uncertainty about the election's outcome stems from states' decision to permit widespread mail-in balloting, a move that opens the door to fraud and abuse and may result in millions of ballots being thrown out by state and national election officials.' ~ BY JUSTIN HASKINS | 10/13/20 08:30 AM EDT

'Since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention urged Americans to wear masks in public, no major outbreaks have been traced to voting queues. Experts now say that voting with a mask on is no more dangerous than going to a grocery store with a mask on--something millions of American do every week.' ~ Derek Thompson | SEPTEMBER 30, 2020

-Index- -Top- -Bottom-

Commonwealth Party
Electoral College Safe Mode
November 30, 2020