Talk:Michael Parker (politician)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Parker (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121022150802/http://www.nationaljournal.com/pubs/almanac/2002/people/ms/msgv.htm to http://nationaljournal.com/pubs/almanac/2002/people/ms/msgv.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.fwweekly.com/content.asp?article=4602

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

"Tiebreaker"
The article currently states:
 * Under an 1890 law, the first tiebreaker was whoever won the most state electoral votes, based on state house districts.

In fairness, this is substantially what it says in the source. But it does not appear to be correct. Per the 1890 constitution, as amended in 1982,
 * SECTION 140. The Governor of the state shall be chosen in in the following manner: On the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November of A.D. 1895, and on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November in every fourth year thereafter, until the day shall be changed by law, an election shall be held in the several counties and districts created for the election of members of the House of Representatives in this state, for Governor, and the person receiving in any county or such legislative district the highest number of votes cast therein, for said office, shall be holden to have received as many votes as such county or district is entitled to members in the House of Representatives, which last named votes are hereby designated "electoral votes". In all cases where a representative is apportioned to two (2) or more counties or districts, the electoral vote based on such representative, shall be equally divided among such counties or districts. The returns of said election shall be certified by the election commissioners, or the majority of them, of the several counties and transmitted, sealed, to the seat of government, directed to the Secretary of State, and shall be by him safely kept and delivered to the Speaker of the House of Representatives on the first day of the next ensuing session of the Legislature. The Speaker shall, on the same day he shall have received said returns, open and publish them in the presence of the House of Representatives, and said House shall ascertain and count the vote of each county and legislative district and decide any contest that may be made concerning the same, and said decision shall be made by a majority of the whole number of members of the House of Representatives concurring therein by a viva voce vote, which shall be recorded in its journal;  provided, in case the two (2) highest candidates have an equal number of votes in any county or legislative district, the electoral vote of such county or legislative district shall be considered as equally divided between them. The person found to have received a majority of all the electoral votes, and also a majority of the popular vote, shall be declared elected. [bolding mine]

So it seems that a majority of electoral votes is not a "tiebreaker", but rather one of two conditions that must both be met to avoid election in the House of Representatives (the other being an absolute majority of the popular vote).

I'm not exactly sure how to fix this; it's generally not good to overrule a secondary source based on a primary source. But it really does look as though the secondary source has gotten it wrong. If someone can find a better secondary source, that would be ideal. --Trovatore (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)