Yea, the vaccine is great, but I am getting tired of one news story after the other. Especially since it will not really be ready for the bulk of the population until after the first of the year.We have competing news today, one is the EC count and second is the vaccine rollout. But seriously, I don’t need to watch EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN getting poked with the needle. Enough already news media with the shots. We all know the vaccine is here and we expect people are getting shots, but do we really need to watch THAT. The EC count is by far the important story of the day to cover. We’ll have some 6 months + to watch vaccines being administered.
As absurd as it sounds, this alternate electors scenario really concerns me. At the very least, it will turn Jan 6 into a shit show. And since the republicans have the majority in both houses (House has only 1 vote per state), some republicans are going to have to step up and do the right thing to quash this.Good article on that Nazi Miller nonsense.
Trump Campaign Assembling Alternate Electors In Key States In Far-Fetched Attempt To Overturn Election
The attempt will not affect the election outcome.www.forbes.com
As absurd as it sounds, this alternate electors scenario really concerns me. At the very least, it will turn Jan 6 into a shit show. And since the republicans have the majority in both houses (House has only 1 vote per state), some republicans are going to have to step up and do the right thing to quash this.
As absurd as it sounds, this alternate electors scenario really concerns me. At the very least, it will turn Jan 6 into a shit show. And since the republicans have the majority in both houses (House has only 1 vote per state), some republicans are going to have to step up and do the right thing to quash this.
House has only one vote per state if selecting president in place of a deadlocked EC.
They are not.
Read the article.
At worst what will happen Jan 6th is performance theater for the Trumpublican base. That's it. It will fail as laid out legally in the article I posted.
The problem is, if I'm reading and understanding this correctly, is that if the GOP controlled both houses, they could easily find a way to throw out EC votes.
I think some people are underestimating how CLOSE all of this really is. Even the Wisconsin SC "only" ruled against Trump 4-3.
Yes, it's nice to have all these multiple guardrails, but in reality only ONE of them needs to be compromised and the entire thing collapses.
2024 and beyond will demonstrate that to all of us. Buckle up.
I agree. Like I said in a previous post, who would ever have believed 120+ representatives would have signed on to Trumps absurd Texas lawsuit. And effectively, the Republicans *do* have a majority in both houses for this issue, because in the house, each state only gets 1 vote, no matter how many representatives they have, and the Republicans control more states. I dont really view all these steps of the EC certification as "guardrails", but more as a series of opportunities to subvert the vote, at least when you have someone as unethical as Trump involved, and a party that is afraid to stand up against him because they are afraid he will bash them on Twitter and alienate them from the base.The problem is, if I'm reading and understanding this correctly, is that if the GOP controlled both houses, they could easily find a way to throw out EC votes.
I think some people are underestimating how CLOSE all of this really is. Even the Wisconsin SC "only" ruled against Trump 4-3.
Yes, it's nice to have all these multiple guardrails, but in reality only ONE of them needs to be compromised and the entire thing collapses.
2024 and beyond will demonstrate that to all of us. Buckle up.
I agree. Like I said in a previous post, who would ever have believed 120+ representatives would have signed on to Trumps absurd Texas lawsuit. And effectively, the Republicans *do* have a majority in both houses for this issue, because in the house, each state only gets 1 vote, no matter how many representatives they have, and the Republicans control more states. I dont really view all these steps of the EC certification as "guardrails", but more as a series of opportunities to subvert the vote, at least when you have someone as unethical as Trump involved, and a party that is afraid to stand up against him because they are afraid he will bash them on Twitter and alienate them from the base.
Edit: I think it is unlikely the legitimate electors will be thrown out, but *at best* some of the republicans will challenge them in the swing states, and add even more fuel to the fire for the base, right wing "news" outlets and media trolls to de-legitimize the election. We desperately need to get rid of the electoral college and settle the election by popular vote.
But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted.
OK, but what if both houses *agree* that the votes from the swing states are invalid? Neither candidate will have 270 votes if they refuse to accept the electors from the swing states, right?That's incorrect. It only goes that way if no candidate has 270 votes. Skip down to 15-
It's dense legalese,but this is the operative phrase-
Those votes are being certified today.
It's just the Trump team flooding the zone with shit.
What if Pence refuses to certify the votes? Or tosses out the swing states? Can he even do that?
OK, but what if both houses *agree* that the votes from the swing states are invalid? Neither candidate will have 270 votes if they refuse to accept the electors from the swing states, right?
The House and Senate have theoretically no option to refuse the electors, when the State electors were properly submitted as of the deadline (which is today), even if both chambers were controlled by Republicans. However, if Trumps 50+ lawsuits had managed to delay any state submittal past today, then the House and Senate could have had option to vote to reject such electors as not "regularly given".OK, but what if both houses *agree* that the votes from the swing states are invalid? Neither candidate will have 270 votes if they refuse to accept the electors from the swing states, right?
What if Pence refuses to certify the votes? Or tosses out the swing states? Can he even do that?
That credit goes away due to his silence while this happens.To his credit, Pence hasn't played into the fraud routine.
Anthony Fauci Reveals His Biggest COVID Vaccine Fear
While some have welcomed the COVID vaccine as a victory over the virus, Fauci warns there’s another test ahead—and we could be “in a little bit of trouble” if it doesn’t go well.www.thedailybeast.com
No, they dont. Each state gets one vote, and the republicans control the majority of states.It's moot, given that Dems control the HOR.
You mean like Trump has pretty much done since the votes were tallied?The House and Senate have theoretically no option to refuse the electors, when the State electors were properly submitted as of the deadline (which is today), even if both chambers were controlled by Republicans. However, if Trumps 50+ lawsuits had managed to delay any state submittal past today, then the House and Senate could have had option to vote to reject such electors as not "regularly given".
Section 15:
"...and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected"
Section 6 provides details on the requirements for the executive of each State to submit the electors for their State.
However, while in this hypothesis land ~ to the extent the Supreme Court also plays along with it, the House and Senate can of course simply disregard the law.
And we have these trumphumpers.........................
They tried to crate their own elector slate FFS.
Fake electors try to deliver Arizona's 11 votes for Trump
""We seated before the legislators here. We already turned it in. We beat them to the game," she said. "
Ha ha ha ha. Effing morons.
It was not immediately clear if the group's effort broke any state or federal laws.
Arizona sketches out a series of criminal charges relating to voting and election fraud, but those mostly appear to mostly deal with casting regular ballots or tallying the ballots.
It also has a provision for making, possessing or presenting what are known as forged instruments with an intent to defraud. That is a felony offense.
The federal government has broad authority to prosecute what it deems mail fraud, although it is more often used to target financial crimes. There is a provision in the mail fraud statutes for depriving people of what are known as "honest services."
curios how you believe that would happen when the Democrats have the majority in the house, both the Senate and the House have to vote for it?You mean like Trump has pretty much done since the votes were tallied?
Yes, the states have to submit the electors that were seated today, but a member of the house, in conjunction with a senator, can claim those electors to be illegitimate and force a vote whether to accept them. If the electors from enough swing states could be voted to be illegitimate (whether they were or not doesnt matter), neither candidate would have a majority of votes, and congress would, I believe, determine the president. Now granted it would be egregiously unfair for this to happen, but being absurd, unfair, and totally unfounded has not stopped all the lawsuits, or stopped over 120 members of congress from supporting Trumps latest and most absurd lawsuit.
curios how you believe that would happen when the Democrats have the majority in the house?
Enter Congress. If neither candidate gets to 270 electors due to disputed ballots, the House would have to decide the election.
Though the House has a Democratic majority, such an outcome would almost certainly benefit Trump. Here’s why: In a concession to small states concerned their voices would be marginalized if the House was called upon to choose the president, the founders gave only one vote to each state. House delegations from each state meet to decide how to cast their single vote.
That voting procedure gives equal representation to California – population 40 million – and Wyoming, population 600,000.
This arrangement favors Republicans. The GOP has dominated the House delegations of 26 states since 2018 – exactly the number required to reach a majority under the rules of House presidential selection. But it’s not the current House that would decide a contested 2020 election; it is the newly elected House, and many Nov. 3 congressional races remain undecided. So far, though, Republicans have retained control of the 26 congressional delegations they currently hold, and Democrats have lost control of two states, Minnesota and Iowa.
Evenly divided delegations count as abstentions, and Republican gains in Minnesota and Iowa are moving these states from Democratic to abstentions.
Perhaps the most relevant precedent for a contested 2020 election that winds up in the House is the 1876 election between Democrat Samuel Tilden and Republican Rutherford B. Hayes. That election saw disputed returns in four states – Florida, South Carolina, Louisiana and Oregon – with a total of 20 electoral votes.
Excluding those 20 disputed electors, Tilden had 184 pledged electors of the 185 needed for victory in the Electoral College; Hayes had 165. Tilden was clearly the front-runner – but Hayes would win if all the contested votes went for him.
Because of a post-Civil War rule allowing Congress – read, Northern Republicans worried about Black voter suppression – to dispute the vote count in Southern states and bypass local courts, Congress established a commission to resolve the disputed 1876 returns.
As Michael Holt writes in his examination of the 1876 election, the 15-member commission had five House representatives, five senators and five Supreme Court justices. Fourteen of the commissioners had identifiable partisan leanings: seven Democrats and seven Republicans. The 15th member was a justice known for his impartiality.
Hope of a nonpartisan outcome was dashed when the one impartial commissioner resigned and was replaced by a Republican judge. The commission voted along party lines to give all 20 disputed electors to Hayes.
To prevent the Democratic-dominated Senate from derailing Hayes’ single-vote triumph over Tilden by refusing to confirm its decision, Republicans were forced to make a deal: Abandon Reconstruction, their policy of Black political and economic inclusion in the post-Civil War South. This paved the way for Jim Crow segregation.