We (probably) don’t have a president-elect yet, only a presumptive one. The EC votes have been neither cast nor counted. The most likely point in time at which a candidate becomes president-elect is when the majority of the EC votes have been cast for that candidate, regardless of the counting and certification. Even though we use the term loosely for the assumed winner, the EC adds a layer of weirdness to the legal definition.
Yeah, but most states have the faithless electors thing sorted out already, the ones that don’t would probably quickly pass laws to bind them to the slate the voters chose.
What I’m saying is not about faithless electors. I never mentioned them, so I’m not completely sure what took you down that road.
There is a legal definition of the term “president-elect” that hasn’t entirely been sorted out. The most widely accepted view is that the candidate who has the majority of EC votes cast for them, regardless of whether those votes have been counted or certified, is legally the president-elect. The nuance to this is that any reference to the president-elect before EC votes have been cast is using the common term, not the legal one.
The distinction is mostly inconsequential, one major exception being the 20th amendment, which you cited previously. That particular usage is specifically the legal definition, which very likely has not been satisfied until the EC casts their votes. The outcome is that, if those who are meant to uphold the law have any interest in doing so, the 20th amendment does not yet apply, and the legal roles of president-elect and vice president-elect are currently vacant.
We (probably) don’t have a president-elect yet, only a presumptive one. The EC votes have been neither cast nor counted. The most likely point in time at which a candidate becomes president-elect is when the majority of the EC votes have been cast for that candidate, regardless of the counting and certification. Even though we use the term loosely for the assumed winner, the EC adds a layer of weirdness to the legal definition.
Yeah, but most states have the faithless electors thing sorted out already, the ones that don’t would probably quickly pass laws to bind them to the slate the voters chose.
https://ask.loc.gov/law/faq/331082
What I’m saying is not about faithless electors. I never mentioned them, so I’m not completely sure what took you down that road.
There is a legal definition of the term “president-elect” that hasn’t entirely been sorted out. The most widely accepted view is that the candidate who has the majority of EC votes cast for them, regardless of whether those votes have been counted or certified, is legally the president-elect. The nuance to this is that any reference to the president-elect before EC votes have been cast is using the common term, not the legal one.
The distinction is mostly inconsequential, one major exception being the 20th amendment, which you cited previously. That particular usage is specifically the legal definition, which very likely has not been satisfied until the EC casts their votes. The outcome is that, if those who are meant to uphold the law have any interest in doing so, the 20th amendment does not yet apply, and the legal roles of president-elect and vice president-elect are currently vacant.