The Electors aren't disputed though. Except by the Trump cult, which doesn't count.
The only way having the numerical majority (not state votes) in the house might be able to block a vote for Trump is that the Democrats could walk out and then there would not be a quorum. Dont know if this would prevent a vote, but it was suggested in one article I read.Goddamn people are dense, or just ignorant of how our system of government works...as has been posted a few times in this thread...if it comes down to Congress deciding...each state gets ONE vote, not one vote per congressman.
Congress could select the president in a disputed election
Judges are generally reluctant to decide elections, as the Supreme Court controversially did in 2000. As a result, Trump’s flurry of litigation could wind up throwing the election to the House.theconversation.com
Unfortunately it *does* matter because those republican cultists can challenge the legitimacy of the elector's votes when they are tallied. I am sure they can make up a reason to dispute them. Something like the latest "there was fraud, but it was too good to detect, so Trump really won".The Electors aren't disputed though. Except by the Trump cult, which doesn't count.
Goddamn people are dense, or just ignorant of how our system of government works...if it comes down to Congress deciding...each state gets ONE vote, not one vote per congressman.
They can dispute them all they want. It takes a majority vote of the entire House (all 535 members) to have them removed and not counted. The scenario BoomerD linked is if neither candidate receives 270 electoral votes in the election, or the House and the Senate both vote to have the disputed electoral votes removed. It won't happen. It will also be difficult to argue fraud when every case was thrown out of court, including the two in the SCOTUS.Unfortunately it *does* matter because those republican cultists can challenge the legitimacy of the elector's votes when they are tallied. I am sure they can make up a reason to dispute them. Something like the latest "there was fraud, but it was too good to detect, so Trump really won".
It's really sad when someone spouts off calling people dense when he doesn't understand what he is reading, the date it was written, and the scenario that needed to happen for it to take place, which didn't take place and doesn't exist.
Will the orance menace COVID-19 accomplice serial killer send daddy a mean tweet?It’s over, Putin conceded the election and congratulated Biden on his victory.
That only comes into effect in the event of a candidate not reaching 270 electoral votes. It's *not* relevant if it's just Mo Brooks and company challenging the votes. A simple majority, each representative getting a vote, shuts that down.Goddamn people are dense, or just ignorant of how our system of government works...as has been posted a few times in this thread...if it comes down to Congress deciding...each state gets ONE vote, not one vote per congressman.
I understand what I've read...and THE DATE has no bearing on the process. The scenario...granted, it's HIGHLY unlikely to amount to much more than a kiddie tantrum at worst...but...it COULD happen that the Republicans manage to challenge the electors of the 4 or 5 states at the heart of the fraud claims...and neither candidate reach the required 270 electoral votes...triggering the House to make the decision...with each state getting one vote...not one vote per representative.
VERIFY: Can Congress reject Electoral College votes?
The Verify team is answering questions from viewers about the process of casting electoral votes and counting them in a joint session in Congress.www.wusa9.com
Note...I don't THINK it will happen...but it COULD...
They should, just to make a point. Do. Not. Fuck. With. Elections.Hopefully felony charges will follow...although the article states:
so...maybe?
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.
edit:
I guess they tried the same thing in Michigan too.
The Electoral College Isn't Festival Seating
In Arizona's case, the actual electors weren't even there. They were meeting at an undisclosed location to keep the crazy people from bumrushing them.www.esquire.com
As the author of the article said:
"I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were a law about submitting counterfeit government documents. "
Throw the book at these trumphumpers.
"One thing I will say about conservatives, is if something is wrong, and we have lost — a true loss — then we accept," she said. "We're not going to drag people through the mud and fight it. But this clearly has got issues. I saw it with my own eyes and my own research. After that hearing, I was shocked we didn't have any other marching orders."
A line from an SNL skit series says it best. "The subject is mute".
Mitch McConnell Recognizes Joe Biden as President-Elect After Electoral College - Bloomberg
Look at that Laura loomer stirring shit up to keep the rubes beholden to her. Just raising the flock for the next fleecing. And the idiots fall for it.according to Parler Mitch is a traitor or some seem to even think this is part of the plan
"Chris" ain't wrong, Moscow Mitch doesn't give a shit who is President. If the Pres is a Rep, Mitch rams through judges; if the Pres is a Dem, then Mitch freezes judgeships until the next Rep up.according to Parler Mitch is a traitor or some seem to even think this is part of the plan
Have the Trumpards gone after Lindsay Graham yet? He confirmed himself he called Biden to congratulate in private a few weeks ago. And I really think Moscow Mitch also called privately to congratulated.according to Parler Mitch is a traitor or some seem to even think this is part of the plan
Call it funding stimulus.Look at that Laura loomer stirring shit up to keep the rubes beholden to her. Just raising the flock for the next fleecing. And the idiots fall for it.
No, now you are linking another article that talks about another scenario. No it doesn't automatically go to a 1 vote per state in the house., if the electoral votes are objected, it goes to a vote in the House and Senate, and if both houses vote opposite per your new article:
"If there’s a split decision, meaning the House voted one way and the Senate voted the other, the objection fails and votes are counted as originally cast.
From there, the typical electoral count continues. If a candidate gets a majority of votes at 270, then he or she officially wins.
If nobody has a majority during the Electoral College meeting, the vote goes to the House of Representatives, with each state getting one vote"''
The ONLY time 1 vote per state comes into play is ONLY if neither candidate gets 270 electoral votes.. There is no possible way for it to happen, unless the House votes to not accept the objected votes, which would require democrats to vote that way. This is not a 1 vote per state vote, the vote to accept or reject those votes is the complete house 535 members, which is controlled by the democrats. So no, you don't understand what you are reading. You are stuck on the 1 vote per state but ignoring the road it takes to get to that point which there is no avenue for it to happen unless a democrat sides with the Republicans.
according to Parler Mitch is a traitor or some seem to even think this is part of the plan
How? How specifically will they manage to throw out electoral votes at this point?Don't dismiss the (R)'s capacity for fuckery so casually...WILL it happen, not likely...COULD it happen? Yes.
IF the Republicans manage to throw out enough votes...or there are enough "faithless electors," that neither candidate hits 270...it only takes 37 to make that happen...then the HoR gets to decide.
The electors already voted and there were no faithless electors.Don't dismiss the (R)'s capacity for fuckery so casually...WILL it happen, not likely...COULD it happen? Yes.
IF the Republicans manage to throw out enough votes...or there are enough "faithless electors," that neither candidate hits 270...it only takes 37 to make that happen...then the HoR gets to decide.
The electors already voted and there were no faithless electors.
The only way the Republicans can throw out even a single vote is if the Democrats agree. Can you paint me any plausible scenario where Democrats agree to re-elect Trump?
The electors already voted and there were no faithless electors.
The only way the Republicans can throw out even a single vote is if the Democrats agree. Can you paint me any plausible scenario where Democrats agree to re-elect Trump?