Do YOU support Trump’s last ditch effort to convince Republican state legislatures to APPOINT pro-Trump Electors?

[BlindBoo]

No I don't think so. The process is bound by law.

You notice it's a lawsuit that is being filed. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. That's the whole point of the thread. Did you not read the OP? Something you didn't understand about it?

You said " And if those State legislators believe that there was cheating "

They can't decide to select a new slate of electors based on their belief that there may have been cheating. There has to be a wrench in the gears somewhere upstream. They have all passed laws binding the electors to the popular vote and the processes for resolving disputes of that vote. Not saying a wrench will not gum up the works......and give them a chance to be faithless to their voters.

 

[Shelzin]

The State legislatures have already chosen: the popular vote. 50 of 50 times.

And if those State legislators believe that there was cheating... They can appoint those electors in any manner they choose.

Your argument. I agree with it.

First, you've abandoned the original claim that I've refuted: that according to the constitution the popular vote was never 'supposed' to be how the electors were chosen. That was obviously wrong, for the reasons I pointed out: the constitution says no such thing.

I accept your concession.

No you don't. I didn't give it. Popular vote isn't the end all as I claimed. I didn't abandon anything.

Now on to the new topic: can the state legislatures CHANGE the method of how their electors are chosen after an election: Its unclear.

State laws may prevent a state legislature from doing so, as election by the people is codified into the state election law. Additionally, its unclear if a state can change its mind for an election that's already happened. Or if they can change their mind after the election if they don't like the result.

Bush v. Gore seems to insinuate the latter....but no ruling has addressed the issue directly.

Yes... That's exactly right... And the whole point of the OP.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Trump is doing his best to destroy the fabric of our democracy. I wish I was only saying that as hyperbole. I can only hope that our country is strong enough to withstand his attacks, but I am concerned. This man is dangerous.

His abnormal way of behaving has really shined a light on some of the glaring issues with the way our country operates. The electoral college, for instance, can be incredibly dangerous when a demagogue is worshiped by such a large portion of uneducated and easily manipulated people.

In many states, the electors are not bound to voting the will of the people in their respective state. With enough of them idolizing Trump, that can present a huge unprecedented situation.

 

[Shelzin]

You said " And if those State legislators believe that there was cheating "

They can't decide to select a new slate of electors based on their belief that there may have been cheating.

Yes... they can. It's the whole point of the fuck'n thread.

There has to be a wrench in the gears somewhere upstream. They have all passed laws binding the electors to the popular vote and the processes for resolving disputes of that vote. Not saying a wrench will not gum up the works......and give them a chance to be faithless to their voters.

I agree.

 

[Shelzin]

Then there is absolutely no sense in having future elections.

Why do you say that? WE just need a way to verify votes and this all goes away.


[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[XponentialChaos]

There is zero chance of this happening

I wish I shared the same optimism.

 

[Skylar]

The State legislatures have already chosen: the popular vote. 50 of 50 times.

And if those State legislators believe that there was cheating... They can appoint those electors in any manner they choose.

Your argument. I agree with it.

First, you've abandoned the original claim that I've refuted: that according to the constitution the popular vote was never 'supposed' to be how the electors were chosen. That was obviously wrong, for the reasons I pointed out: the constitution says no such thing.

I accept your concession.

No you don't. I didn't give it. Popular vote isn't the end all as I claimed. I didn't abandon anything.

Of course you did. You changed the topic.....and stopped addressing my critique of your original claim. That's abandoning it.

The popular vote is 'supposed' to be the method of how electors are appointed as much as any other method that the State legislature chooses.

The constitution doesn't say what method the electors are supposed to use. Or not supposed to use. Nixing any 'supposed to' argument you might imagine.

Now on to the new topic: can the state legislatures CHANGE the method of how their electors are chosen after an election: Its unclear.

State laws may prevent a state legislature from doing so, as election by the people is codified into the state election law. Additionally, its unclear if a state can change its mind for an election that's already happened. Or if they can change their mind after the election if they don't like the result.

Bush v. Gore seems to insinuate the latter....but no ruling has addressed the issue directly.

Yes... That's exactly right... And the whole point of the OP.
[/QUOTE]

The whole point of the OP is do you support it.

As demonstrated by the name of the thread. Do YOU support Trump’s last ditch effort to convince Republican state legislatures to APPOINT pro-Trump Electors?

I do not. I think its a subversion of our democratic institutions and a demonstrations of the conservative hostility to democracy and the will of the people on their slide into authoritarianism as their sole unifying ideology.

As I've said in this very thread already.

 

[Shelzin]

Of course you did. You changed the topic.....and stopped addressing my critique of your original claim. That's abandoning it.

The popular vote is 'supposed' to be the method of how electors are appointed as much as any other method that the State legislature chooses.

But that's not what I said. You are addressing something I didn't say. Here:

Popular vote was NEVER supposed to be the deciding factor.

Now... The state legislators may have decided to use popular vote to decide... but it's STILL THE STATE LEGISLATORS THAT HAVE THE FINAL SAY. THEY ARE THE DECIDING FACTOR. How they get to that deciding factor is up to the STATE LEGISLATORS which is the deciding factor.

Now on to the new topic: can the state legislatures CHANGE the method of how their electors are chosen after an election: Its unclear.

True. It's up to the State Legislators ... Isn't it?

The whole point of the OP is do you support it.

Do I support the State Legislator being the deciding factor? Yes I do.

As demonstrated by the name of the thread. Do YOU support Trump’s last ditch effort to convince Republican state legislatures to APPOINT pro-Trump Electors?

I do not. I think its a subversion of our democratic institutions and a demonstrations of the conservative hostility to democracy and the will of the people on their slide into authoritarianism as their sole unifying ideology.

As I've said in this very thread already.

And why is it a question at all? Because the State Legislators are the deciding factors. Not popular vote.

I now understand where the confusion is. I could have explained myself better.

 

[Skylar]

Of course you did. You changed the topic.....and stopped addressing my critique of your original claim. That's abandoning it.

The popular vote is 'supposed' to be the method of how electors are appointed as much as any other method that the State legislature chooses.

But that's not what I said. You are addressing something I didn't say. Here:

Popular vote was NEVER supposed to be the deciding factor.

What you said was...."I think it should be noted that the Constitution was drawn up and specific about this. Popular vote was NEVER supposed to be the deciding factor."

And you're obviously wrong. The constitution wasn't 'specific' about this. It never said that the popular vote was 'never supposed to be the deciding factor'. You made all that up.

Instead, the constitution specifically says the state legislatures choose the manner in which their electors are appointed.

Thus, the popular vote is 'supposed' to be the method of how electors are appointed as much as any other method that the State legislature chooses

 

[BlindBoo]

You said " And if those State legislators believe that there was cheating "

They can't decide to select a new slate of electors based on their belief that there may have been cheating.

Yes... they can. It's the whole point of the fuck'n thread.

They would have to change the state

The state legislators may have decided to use popular vote to decide... but it's STILL THE STATE LEGISLATORS THAT HAVE THE FINAL SAY. THEY ARE THE DECIDING FACTOR.

They passed state laws that bind the elector to the popular vote. They can break the law that the state legislatures passed because they believe they should? They can't override the law. That's not to say that something gumming up the works in the certification of the election results couldn't possibly result in them getting to vote on a slate of electors.

 

[Shelzin]

Of course you did. You changed the topic.....and stopped addressing my critique of your original claim. That's abandoning it.

The popular vote is 'supposed' to be the method of how electors are appointed as much as any other method that the State legislature chooses.

But that's not what I said. You are addressing something I didn't say. Here:

Popular vote was NEVER supposed to be the deciding factor.

What you said was...."I think it should be noted that the Constitution was drawn up and specific about this. Popular vote was NEVER supposed to be the deciding factor."

And you're obviously wrong. The constitution wasn't 'specific' about this. It never said that the popular vote was 'never supposed to be the deciding factor'. You made all that up.

Instead, the constitution specifically says the state legislatures choose the manner in which their electors are appointed.

Thus, the popular vote is 'supposed' to be the method of how electors are appointed as much as any other method that the State legislature chooses

Yeah... So the STATE Legislators are the deciding factor. Your words.

 

[Skylar]

You said " And if those State legislators believe that there was cheating "

They can't decide to select a new slate of electors based on their belief that there may have been cheating.

Yes... they can. It's the whole point of the fuck'n thread.

They would have to change the state

The state legislators may have decided to use popular vote to decide... but it's STILL THE STATE LEGISLATORS THAT HAVE THE FINAL SAY. THEY ARE THE DECIDING FACTOR.

They passed state laws that bind the elector to the popular vote. They can break the law that the state legislatures passed because they believe they should? They can't override the law. That's not to say that something gumming up the works in the certification of the election results couldn't possibly result in them getting to vote on a slate of electors.

Oh, any attempt would break LOADS of state laws. But whether it was constitutionally permissible is unclear.

 

[Shelzin]

They passed state laws that bind the elector to the popular vote. They can break the law that the state legislatures passed because they believe they should? They can't override the law. That's not to say that something gumming up the works in the certification of the election results couldn't possibly result in them getting to vote on a slate of electors.

State Legislators can illegitimatize it at the very least. It's up to the state. Pretty sure every state is going to have something on the books for the exact thing. What they can do after that... Well.. They make the laws. That's the point.

 

[Skylar]

Of course you did. You changed the topic.....and stopped addressing my critique of your original claim. That's abandoning it.

The popular vote is 'supposed' to be the method of how electors are appointed as much as any other method that the State legislature chooses.

But that's not what I said. You are addressing something I didn't say. Here:

Popular vote was NEVER supposed to be the deciding factor.

What you said was...."I think it should be noted that the Constitution was drawn up and specific about this. Popular vote was NEVER supposed to be the deciding factor."

And you're obviously wrong. The constitution wasn't 'specific' about this. It never said that the popular vote was 'never supposed to be the deciding factor'. You made all that up.

Instead, the constitution specifically says the state legislatures choose the manner in which their electors are appointed.

Thus, the popular vote is 'supposed' to be the method of how electors are appointed as much as any other method that the State legislature chooses

Yeah... So the STATE Legislators are the deciding factor. Your words.

As I've explained to you repeatedly, yes. And they've chosen, 50 of 50 times, to use the popular vote.

Contrary to your imagination about the constitution, there's nothing in it, specific or otherwise, that states that the "Popular vote was NEVER supposed to be the deciding factor."

The popular vote is 'supposed' to be the method of how electors are appointed as much as any other method that the State legislature chooses.

The imaginary constitution you've made up that that is 'specific' that the populuar vote was NEVER supposed to be the deciding factor' isn't the document that we govern elections by.

The actual constitution is.

 

[Anathema]

YES. YES I DO.

I don’t believe the true outcome of this election (if run legitimately) will ever be known; but that’s nothing new in this system. It’s also part of why I have no use for any sort of Democratic Govermmnmental system.

However, ANYTHING (I mean that) that disrupts, inconvenienced or otherwise hampers the Biden/Harris administration is good so far as I’m concerned.,

 

[Shelzin]

Of course you did. You changed the topic.....and stopped addressing my critique of your original claim. That's abandoning it.

The popular vote is 'supposed' to be the method of how electors are appointed as much as any other method that the State legislature chooses.

But that's not what I said. You are addressing something I didn't say. Here:

Popular vote was NEVER supposed to be the deciding factor.

What you said was...."I think it should be noted that the Constitution was drawn up and specific about this. Popular vote was NEVER supposed to be the deciding factor."

And you're obviously wrong. The constitution wasn't 'specific' about this. It never said that the popular vote was 'never supposed to be the deciding factor'. You made all that up.

Instead, the constitution specifically says the state legislatures choose the manner in which their electors are appointed.

Thus, the popular vote is 'supposed' to be the method of how electors are appointed as much as any other method that the State legislature chooses

Yeah... So the STATE Legislators are the deciding factor. Your words.

As I've explained to you repeatedly, yes. And they've chosen, 50 of 50 times, to use the popular vote.

Contrary to your imagination about the constitution, there's nothing in it, specific or otherwise, that states that the "Popular vote was NEVER supposed to be the deciding factor."

The popular vote is 'supposed' to be the method of how electors are appointed as much as any other method that the State legislature chooses.

The imaginary constitution you've made up that that is 'specific' that the populuar vote was NEVER supposed to be the deciding factor' isn't the document that we govern elections by.

The actual constitution is.

And they can illegitimize the process... You know why? Because they are the deciding factor.

 

[PredFan]

I wonder what most ordinary Republicans would say and do if Trump were to convince Republican-controlled legislatures (as in Georgia & Michigan) to ignore the statewide popular vote for Biden, dismiss it as fraudulent on the basis of no real court-certified evidence, and appoint Republican Electors to re-elect Trump?

That now seems to be his “Plan C.” In the unlikely and god-awful case that he became President in this way, Trump and his Republican supporters would truly be leading us to Civil War. It would be an historical point marking the degeneration of our democratic traditions, and the transformation of our country into a rightwing “Banana Republic.”

Sad to say, this undemocratic attempt at a “coup” is exactly what Trump seems to be trying to do right now, as outlined clearly in this FOX report. Do YOU support such conduct? Where do our Republican USMBers — especially those claiming to be critical of Trump in some ways — stand on such efforts?

Trump to meet Michigan leaders in bid to block Biden victory

Two Michigan state legislators headed to the White House on Friday as President Donald Trump made an extraordinary and sure-to-be futile attempt to block Joe Biden’s victory in the battleground state and subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election.

www.fox5dc.com

I support anything Trump does to get the election back from the corrupt left that stole it from the American people.

 

[Skylar]

They passed state laws that bind the elector to the popular vote. They can break the law that the state legislatures passed because they believe they should? They can't override the law. That's not to say that something gumming up the works in the certification of the election results couldn't possibly result in them getting to vote on a slate of electors.

State Legislators can illegitimatize it at the very least. It's up to the state. Pretty sure every state is going to have something on the books for the exact thing. What they can do after that... Well.. They make the laws. That's the point.

Legally? Its unclear.

In the court of public opinion? Probably not. The idea that the vote of the people should be set aside if partisan legislators don't like the outcome is not a great pitch to the electorate you're disenfranchising.

And is almost certainly illegal at the state level.

 

[Skylar]

Of course you did. You changed the topic.....and stopped addressing my critique of your original claim. That's abandoning it.

The popular vote is 'supposed' to be the method of how electors are appointed as much as any other method that the State legislature chooses.

But that's not what I said. You are addressing something I didn't say. Here:

Popular vote was NEVER supposed to be the deciding factor.

What you said was...."I think it should be noted that the Constitution was drawn up and specific about this. Popular vote was NEVER supposed to be the deciding factor."

And you're obviously wrong. The constitution wasn't 'specific' about this. It never said that the popular vote was 'never supposed to be the deciding factor'. You made all that up.

Instead, the constitution specifically says the state legislatures choose the manner in which their electors are appointed.

Thus, the popular vote is 'supposed' to be the method of how electors are appointed as much as any other method that the State legislature chooses

Yeah... So the STATE Legislators are the deciding factor. Your words.

As I've explained to you repeatedly, yes. And they've chosen, 50 of 50 times, to use the popular vote.

Contrary to your imagination about the constitution, there's nothing in it, specific or otherwise, that states that the "Popular vote was NEVER supposed to be the deciding factor."

The popular vote is 'supposed' to be the method of how electors are appointed as much as any other method that the State legislature chooses

The imaginary constitution you've made up that that is 'specific' that the populuar vote was NEVER supposed to be the deciding factor' isn't the document that we govern elections by.

The actual constitution is.

And they can illegalize the process... You know why? Because they are the deciding factor.

"Illegimitimize' is vague term. You'll need to get more specific about what you mean. As for whether or not they can alter the method a state's electors are appointed by AFTER an election.....is unclear.

If they cannot....then the people in 50 of 50 States are the 'deciding factor' for the elections that they've voted in...by your own standards.

 

[BlindBoo]

You said " And if those State legislators believe that there was cheating "

They can't decide to select a new slate of electors based on their belief that there may have been cheating.

Yes... they can. It's the whole point of the fuck'n thread.

They would have to change the state

The state legislators may have decided to use popular vote to decide... but it's STILL THE STATE LEGISLATORS THAT HAVE THE FINAL SAY. THEY ARE THE DECIDING FACTOR.

They passed state laws that bind the elector to the popular vote. They can break the law that the state legislatures passed because they believe they should? They can't override the law. That's not to say that something gumming up the works in the certification of the election results couldn't possibly result in them getting to vote on a slate of electors.

Oh, any attempt would break LOADS of state laws. But whether it was constitutionally permissible is unclear.

What’s more, such a move would justifiably be seen by much of the public as a coup. It is a terrible idea.

But even more fundamentally, the Supreme Court has unanimously undercut the core premise to this argument for legislative superpower. And we should know. We argued the opposite before the court this year, in the context of presidential electors, rather than state legislatures, going rogue—and we lost.

The legal theory that would allow state legislatures to go rogue and appoint electors without regard for the popular vote rests on an argument made by Chief Justice William Rehnquist in Bush v. Gore, for himself and two other justices. On this view, a legislature is unconstrained in its power to set the manner by which electors are selected—meaning that even after an election, the legislature could ignore the results and select a different slate altogether. A recent opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggests that Rehnquist’s argument may again be on the rise.

But advocates for this view need to recognize that between Bush v. Gore and today, the Supreme Court has unanimously decided that presidential electors are not actually “electors” but instead are bound to the people’s vote. That principle that cabins elector discretion must also constrain legislatures—at least if the country is to avoid an abomination that the Framers expressly rejected.

State Legislatures Can’t Ignore the Popular Vote in Appointing Electors

The Supreme Court has unanimously undercut the core premise to this argument.

www.lawfareblog.com