IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 2 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Ha!
“If the country continues to follow the rule of law,..."

What, pray tell, in our recent history makes you believe we're still a country likely to follow the rule of law (if we ever were in the first place)?
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New This, unfortunately
What I want to see - because I'm sure Trump's team already has this - is an analysis of just what laws would have to be ignored, and by whom, for him to take a second term. The current Senate has amply proved that the law doesn't matter if you control those charged with enforcing it.
--

Drew
New Three Republican state legislatures ignoring their populaces' votes would do it.
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
New I don't think that's illegal. Unethical, sure, but we're talking Republicans here.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New That would require more than failing to enforce the law
Suppose some state's legislature decides they're going to go with the Republican appointed electors despite Biden winning that state. Whatever is the time and place for the electors to show up and cast their votes, I would expect both the Republican and Democratic appointed electors to show up.

Some law enforcement agency would be called in to eject "trespassers" from the location. That agency would have to decide who are the trespassers, since both sides would claim the law is on their side.

Alternatively, if a state legislature simply refuses to convene the electors and send their own decision to Congress, it's the House that counts the votes. They would (I assume) refuse the votes from that rogue state on the grounds that they hadn't followed their own prescribed manner of voting.

Short version, I don't think simply ignoring the EC process and sending a vote from the state legislature would work. I want to know what the other methods are and who would have to be complicit.
--

Drew
New No legal violation.
Electors constitutionally remain free to cast their ballots for any person they wish and occasionally they have done so. In 1968, for example, a Republican elector in North Carolina chose to cast his vote not for Richard M. Nixon, who had won a plurality in the state, but for George Wallace, the independent candidate who had won the second greatest number of votes. Members of both the House of Representatives and of the Senate objected to counting that vote for Mr. Wallace and insisted that it should be counted for Mr. Nixon, but both bodies decided to count the vote as cast.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C2-1-2-3/ALDE_00001123/
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Who appoints the electors?
Is it the same slate of electors no matter which party wins? I thought the slate of electors for each state is determined by who wins the popular vote. Is that not the case?
--

Drew
New Varies by State.
The U.S. Constitution does not specify procedures for the nomination of candidates for presidential elector. The two most common methods the states have adopted are nomination by state party convention and by state party committee. Generally, the parties select members known for their loyalty and service to the party, such as party leaders, state and local elected officials and party activists.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/the-electoral-college.aspx

While I'm not suggesting for a moment that Trump could win re-election through faithless electors (he'd need too many - at least 40 by most counts), if he did so, it would be legal (Constitutionally, at any rate). If a State wants to make faithless electors illegal, they can, but many have not. Consider that in 2016 there was a record seven faithless electors.

A historic number of “faithless” electors -- seven in total--each cast their ballots on Monday for a candidate other than the one who won his or her state. What may be more surprising, given the level of protests against Donald Trump and the pressure exerted on Republican electors, is that a greater number were untrue to Hillary Clinton than to Mr. Trump.

Among the 538 electors chosen to represent their states in the Electoral College, five were faithless to the Democratic nominee and two to the Republican. Prior to this year, there hasn’t been more than one faithless elector in any presidential election since 1948. ...

Though there is no Constitutional provision or federal law barring electors from voting for whom they are pledged, more than half of the states, including D.C., “bind” their electors. The rest of electors may have the legal authority to vote for whomever they want, but, as CBS News previously reported, faithless electors have never decided a presidential election.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/which-candidates-did-the-seven-faithless-electors-support-election-2016/
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New A pragmatic view?
From Ars Technica:

Again, let’s take a look at what’s going on. Trump is completely AWOL right now, hiding in the White House. If he thought he was winning this, he’d be out crowing about it. The best message coming out of McConnell is that Trump has the right to make legal challenges. That’s not remotely him signaling he’s got Trump’s back. Every single significant legal challenge to the counts have been laughed out of court for lack of evidence, and the desperate calls for evidence have ended up with zip. All major news agencies are calling Biden “President-Elect”, and running stories about how depressed the mood is in the White House with discussions as to what it’ll look like when Trump acknowledges he’s not going to be president.

None of these things point to Trump somehow managing to cheat his way into a second term. Again, definitely don’t be complacent or cocky. But there’s absolutely NO reason to be pessimistic or panicked about the current trajectory of this.

All Trump is doing right now is tweeting (and re-tweeting talking points) about how Fox is shit.

We know he can't keep his yap shut for five seconds if he thinks he's winning.

Also, there's this.
New I think Stephen Colbert said it best.
"One last grift for the road."

He's sending out thousand upon thousand of fund raising solicitations for the "Official Election Defense Fund." A plethora of news outlets have followed where the money is going and it is to help pay off Trump's campaign debts. It's yet another in a long line of Trump cons.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New TBH that'll be the limit of it.
Hoover out the wallets of a few temporarily embarrassed millionaires, keep the wolves from the door for the foreseeable, and then go back to tweeting from the golden throne.

Well, until NYSD unleash their law-boner upon him.
New They'll never convict him in a jury trial.
Too many Trumpistas around the country; any trial is likely to hold at least one they don't filter out. (Saw somebody do the math once a month or so ago) Hung jury, unless the shine wears off, and he's likely to keep spouting nonsense out of office to keep his people going.
use std::option::sig
New They are trying to block/delay certification
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/13/politics/trump-michigan-election/index.html
A Michigan state judge has rejected an attempt by two poll challengers to block the certification of a Joe Biden win in Detroit, which helped carry his victory in the state.

Attorney David Fink, representing Detroit, said at a hearing Wednesday that blocking the finalization of Michigan's votes would either knock the state out of the Electoral College, kicking the selection of the president to the US House of Representatives, or would allow the Republican-held state legislature to try to seat its own slate of electors.

So, all that appears needed is a sympathetic judge pulling this close to the certification deadline and mayhem ensues. It is hard to see how many of these lawsuits may be out there as they are not directly tied to Don Trump's campaign.
     The legal view - (pwhysall) - (13)
         Ha! - (mmoffitt) - (12)
             This, unfortunately - (drook) - (11)
                 Three Republican state legislatures ignoring their populaces' votes would do it. -NT - (malraux) - (5)
                     I don't think that's illegal. Unethical, sure, but we're talking Republicans here. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                     That would require more than failing to enforce the law - (drook) - (3)
                         No legal violation. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                             Who appoints the electors? - (drook) - (1)
                                 Varies by State. - (mmoffitt)
                 A pragmatic view? - (pwhysall) - (3)
                     I think Stephen Colbert said it best. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                         TBH that'll be the limit of it. - (pwhysall) - (1)
                             They'll never convict him in a jury trial. - (InThane)
                 They are trying to block/delay certification - (scoenye)

If I'm trying to do something that stupid, strong typing is the least of my problems.
91 ms