Hypothetically, if this happens it changes the required amount of EV required for a candidate to win the election, correct? Rather than 270 it becomes 250, or something in that ballpark? (Essentially, PA is removed from the contest as if no such state existed.)
u/AlphaOverBeta is correct. The election is always first past the 270 post, which (while perhaps a design flaw that encourages a 2-party system) never changes. You could saw off half of the United States and the 270 mark would not change.
"A candidate needs a majority of the votes to win. That figure is 270, unless Congress disqualifies a state’s electoral votes. Members of Congress can challenge or reject the electoral votes, though that process is complicated and rare."
Hypothetically, if this happens it changes the required amount of EV required for a candidate to win the election, correct? Rather than 270 it becomes 250, or something in that ballpark? (Essentially, PA is removed from the contest as if no such state existed.)
No if nobody hits 270 then it goes to house delegation. 1 state, 1 vote.
Which we will win 26-23
As long as the cuckedness isn’t spread too wide.
No, you still need 270 to win by conventional means.
u/AlphaOverBeta is correct. The election is always first past the 270 post, which (while perhaps a design flaw that encourages a 2-party system) never changes. You could saw off half of the United States and the 270 mark would not change.
Quite sure I read where the denominator can in fact be reduced if a states Electors are voided.
I’d really need a source on that.
According to NYT:
"A candidate needs a majority of the votes to win. That figure is 270, unless Congress disqualifies a state’s electoral votes. Members of Congress can challenge or reject the electoral votes, though that process is complicated and rare."
Hm. I don’t think that’s accurate, but I won’t say I haven’t been Mandela Effect’d before.