[Cause]

Oh I thought the state legislators chose the electors.

[Terez]

https://www.archives...ollege/electors

[Primateus]

Cause, on 13 November 2020 - 01:45 AM, said:

Is there actually any fear of faithless electors changing the outcome? I'd imagine they'd be assassinated if they actually tried something like that

There is a legitimate fear, although probably unlikely to happen, that the Republican controlled Pennsylvania legislature will simply choose electors who will prove loyal to Trump, thus potentially denying Biden the 270 votes.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Primateus, on 13 November 2020 - 05:41 AM, said:

Cause, on 13 November 2020 - 01:45 AM, said:

Is there actually any fear of faithless electors changing the outcome? I'd imagine they'd be assassinated if they actually tried something like that

There is a legitimate fear, although probably unlikely to happen, that the Republican controlled Pennsylvania legislature will simply choose electors who will prove loyal to Trump, thus potentially denying Biden the 270 votes.

Also Wisconsin, Michigan... and of course Georgia and Arizona. Not Nevada though.

'Trump’s son has promoted the idea of legislatures overturning the election, and so has Trump’s staunch ally, Florida Republican governor Ron DeSantis. Meanwhile, a Republican lawmaker involved in Wisconsin’s new election fraud investigation suggested his state’s popular vote could be ignored.'

https://jacobinmag.c...NVVKeDME1dOiiZc

[Primateus]

Normally, I would have said this was something that would not happen, as I usually believe that people are basically decent and wants to be honest. But we are talking about a party of people who are okay with the mass incarceration of children in cages and placing blame for it on everyone else.

[QuickTidal]

Primateus, on 13 November 2020 - 05:41 AM, said:

Cause, on 13 November 2020 - 01:45 AM, said:

Is there actually any fear of faithless electors changing the outcome? I'd imagine they'd be assassinated if they actually tried something like that

There is a legitimate fear, although probably unlikely to happen, that the Republican controlled Pennsylvania legislature will simply choose electors who will prove loyal to Trump, thus potentially denying Biden the 270 votes.

I could be wrong, but I think I read that the Supreme Court has noted penalties for sending faithless electors...

The Supreme Court was confronted with whether states can enforce these pledge laws. In two cases, one out of Colorado and the other out of Washington state, all nine justices agreed that states could nullify the votes of "faithless" electors and punish them by removal (as Colorado did) or imposing a fine (as Washington did).

The fine is nothing, but removal and nullification would mean that SCOTUS has ruled that this is not a smart thing to do.

And in places like PA Biden has an extra 35 delegates on top of the ones he already has (150 of them), so the buffer zone is simply too wide to expect any kind of faithless elector delegate shenanigans.

[Primateus]

QuickTidal, on 13 November 2020 - 12:35 PM, said:

Primateus, on 13 November 2020 - 05:41 AM, said:

Cause, on 13 November 2020 - 01:45 AM, said:

Is there actually any fear of faithless electors changing the outcome? I'd imagine they'd be assassinated if they actually tried something like that

There is a legitimate fear, although probably unlikely to happen, that the Republican controlled Pennsylvania legislature will simply choose electors who will prove loyal to Trump, thus potentially denying Biden the 270 votes.

I could be wrong, but I think I read that the Supreme Court has noted penalties for sending faithless electors...

The Supreme Court was confronted with whether states can enforce these pledge laws. In two cases, one out of Colorado and the other out of Washington state, all nine justices agreed that states could nullify the votes of "faithless" electors and punish them by removal (as Colorado did) or imposing a fine (as Washington did).

The fine is nothing, but removal and nullification would mean that SCOTUS has ruled that this is not a smart thing to do.

And in places like PA Biden has an extra 35 delegates on top of the ones he already has (150 of them), so the buffer zone is simply too wide to expect any kind of faithless elector delegate shenanigans.

It's not really about faithless electors, it is about state legislatures appointing electors specifically to deny Biden his electoral votes.

This post has been edited by Primateus: 13 November 2020 - 01:44 PM

[Cyphon]

And 35 is two states, thats not a lot of coordination required.

[QuickTidal]

Primateus, on 13 November 2020 - 01:44 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 13 November 2020 - 12:35 PM, said:

Primateus, on 13 November 2020 - 05:41 AM, said:

Cause, on 13 November 2020 - 01:45 AM, said:

Is there actually any fear of faithless electors changing the outcome? I'd imagine they'd be assassinated if they actually tried something like that

There is a legitimate fear, although probably unlikely to happen, that the Republican controlled Pennsylvania legislature will simply choose electors who will prove loyal to Trump, thus potentially denying Biden the 270 votes.

I could be wrong, but I think I read that the Supreme Court has noted penalties for sending faithless electors...

The Supreme Court was confronted with whether states can enforce these pledge laws. In two cases, one out of Colorado and the other out of Washington state, all nine justices agreed that states could nullify the votes of "faithless" electors and punish them by removal (as Colorado did) or imposing a fine (as Washington did).

The fine is nothing, but removal and nullification would mean that SCOTUS has ruled that this is not a smart thing to do.

And in places like PA Biden has an extra 35 delegates on top of the ones he already has (150 of them), so the buffer zone is simply too wide to expect any kind of faithless elector delegate shenanigans.

It's not really about faithless electors, it is about state legislatures appointing electors specifically to deny Biden his electoral votes.

Yeah, I don't know the specifics, but as far as I have read, this is not possible? someone who knows more about the States should weigh in, but yeah I don't think it's really possible.

It would be REALLY going against he will of the people to do this...like really badly...

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 13 November 2020 - 02:36 PM

[Primateus]

QuickTidal, on 13 November 2020 - 02:35 PM, said:

Primateus, on 13 November 2020 - 01:44 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 13 November 2020 - 12:35 PM, said:

Primateus, on 13 November 2020 - 05:41 AM, said:

Cause, on 13 November 2020 - 01:45 AM, said:

Is there actually any fear of faithless electors changing the outcome? I'd imagine they'd be assassinated if they actually tried something like that

There is a legitimate fear, although probably unlikely to happen, that the Republican controlled Pennsylvania legislature will simply choose electors who will prove loyal to Trump, thus potentially denying Biden the 270 votes.

I could be wrong, but I think I read that the Supreme Court has noted penalties for sending faithless electors...

The Supreme Court was confronted with whether states can enforce these pledge laws. In two cases, one out of Colorado and the other out of Washington state, all nine justices agreed that states could nullify the votes of "faithless" electors and punish them by removal (as Colorado did) or imposing a fine (as Washington did).

The fine is nothing, but removal and nullification would mean that SCOTUS has ruled that this is not a smart thing to do.

And in places like PA Biden has an extra 35 delegates on top of the ones he already has (150 of them), so the buffer zone is simply too wide to expect any kind of faithless elector delegate shenanigans.

It's not really about faithless electors, it is about state legislatures appointing electors specifically to deny Biden his electoral votes.

Yeah, I don't know the specifics, but as far as I have read, this is not possible? someone who knows more about the States should weigh in, but yeah I don't think it's really possible.

It would be REALLY going against he will of the people to do this...like really badly...

Well, like I wrote, it seems unlikely. But Trumps people seem to to think they can do it. Don't discount the tenacity of evil people who don't care whst someone gas to pay for them to get their way.

[QuickTidal]

Primateus, on 13 November 2020 - 02:46 PM, said:

Well, like I wrote, it seems unlikely. But Trumps people seem to to think they can do it. Don't discount the tenacity of evil people who don't care whst someone gas to pay for them to get their way.

That's a fair point.

[Primateus]

QuickTidal, on 13 November 2020 - 03:10 PM, said:

Primateus, on 13 November 2020 - 02:46 PM, said:

Well, like I wrote, it seems unlikely. But Trumps people seem to to think they can do it. Don't discount the tenacity of evil people who don't care whst someone gas to pay for them to get their way.

That's a fair point.

I guess I could just say I dont care. But as we have seen so often before, as goes the US,so goes the rest of the western world.
And however unlikely, I just know that they are going to give up some bullshit justification. Like, "we are doing this because we have to stop the genocide of unborn children. Its for the children!" Or something similar

And enough people are going to think tgat sounds reasonable enough to go along with it, despite it being the text book definition of a stolen election. Combine that with the people screaming fraud, and the people claiming fraud despite knowing better? And you get four more years of Donald Trump, children being put in cages and everythung being everyone else's fault.

Additional, that is also why "single-issue" voters don't really exist.

This post has been edited by Primateus: 13 November 2020 - 03:23 PM

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

QuickTidal, on 13 November 2020 - 02:35 PM, said:

Primateus, on 13 November 2020 - 01:44 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 13 November 2020 - 12:35 PM, said:

Primateus, on 13 November 2020 - 05:41 AM, said:

Cause, on 13 November 2020 - 01:45 AM, said:

Is there actually any fear of faithless electors changing the outcome? I'd imagine they'd be assassinated if they actually tried something like that

There is a legitimate fear, although probably unlikely to happen, that the Republican controlled Pennsylvania legislature will simply choose electors who will prove loyal to Trump, thus potentially denying Biden the 270 votes.

I could be wrong, but I think I read that the Supreme Court has noted penalties for sending faithless electors...

The Supreme Court was confronted with whether states can enforce these pledge laws. In two cases, one out of Colorado and the other out of Washington state, all nine justices agreed that states could nullify the votes of "faithless" electors and punish them by removal (as Colorado did) or imposing a fine (as Washington did).

The fine is nothing, but removal and nullification would mean that SCOTUS has ruled that this is not a smart thing to do.

And in places like PA Biden has an extra 35 delegates on top of the ones he already has (150 of them), so the buffer zone is simply too wide to expect any kind of faithless elector delegate shenanigans.

It's not really about faithless electors, it is about state legislatures appointing electors specifically to deny Biden his electoral votes.

Yeah, I don't know the specifics, but as far as I have read, this is not possible? someone who knows more about the States should weigh in, but yeah I don't think it's really possible.

It would be REALLY going against he will of the people to do this...like really badly...

'Why is public perception so important? Because as the Ohio State University law professor Edward Foley shows in a frighteningly prescient 2019 article, legislatures could use the public perception of fraud to try to invoke their constitutional power to ignore their states' popular votes, reject certified election results and appoint slates of Trump electors.

[...]

"At Trump's urging, the state's legislature – where Republicans have majorities in both houses – purports to exercise its authority under Article II of the Constitution to appoint the state's presidential electors directly. Taking their cue from Trump, both legislative chambers claim that the certified popular vote cannot be trusted because of the blue shift that occurred in overtime. Therefore, the two chambers claim to have the constitutional right to supersede the popular vote and assert direct authority to appoint the state's presidential electors, so that this appointment is in line with the popular vote tally as it existed on Election Night, which Trump continues to claim is the 'true' outcome.

The state's Democratic governor refuses to assent to this assertion of authority by the state's legislature, but the legislature's two chambers proclaim that the governor's assent is unnecessary. They cite early historical practices in which state legislatures appointed presidential electors without any involvement of the state's governor. They argue that like constitutional amendments, and unlike ordinary legislation, the appointment of presidential electors when undertaken directly by a state legislature is not subject to a gubernatorial veto."'

https://www.theguard...icans-democrats

'At a meeting on Wednesday at the White House, President Trump had something he wanted to discuss with his advisers, many of whom have told him his chances of succeeding at changing the results of the 2020 election are thin as a reed.

He then proceeded to press them on whether Republican legislatures could pick pro-Trump electors in a handful of key states and deliver him the electoral votes he needs to change the math and give him a second term'

https://www.nytimes....pgtype=Homepage

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 13 November 2020 - 03:32 PM

[QuickTidal]

Department of Homeland Security has come out and states that this was America's most secure election ever.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 13 November 2020 - 03:48 PM

[Primateus]

QuickTidal, on 13 November 2020 - 03:47 PM, said:

Department of Homeland Security has come out and states that this was America's most secure election ever.

They have, and the people shouting fraud don't care.

[Malankazooie]

Those preemptive cyber attacks against known foreign threats were baller. A doff of the cap to our intelligence and cyber security apparatus *chef's-kiss.

[Terez]

State legislatures cannot override the popular vote when choosing electors.

https://www.lawfareb...inting-electors

[QuickTidal]

Man, this stuff just gets better and better.

https://www.newsweek...r-court-1547233

[Terez]

All the networks just called GA for Biden and NC for Trump, so it's over. All 50 states have been called. (They all called AZ yesterday.)

https://www.nytimes....-president.html

[Macros]

man stay out of the comment section of the QT link, 'murica be fucking craxy!