How do you think the Election Process Will End?

[Flopper]

E - none of the above.

The several states will certify their results in the next few weeks and name their electors, those electors will vote on December 14, and that will be that. Same as any other election.

Rump of course will fire off petulant twits about how the Electoral College is "a disaster for a democracy" and they're all "losers" and proceed to melt into a corner sucking his thumb, rocking and making moaning noises for the next month. With any luck it will be live-streamed.

What makes you think republican [sic] state legislatures wont choose different electors?

The two party system has no real power under law

They can't. So says existing state laws.

It ain't a question of "the two party system". It's how the states handle the election, by their state's OWN LAW.
You're actually suggesting they're going to convene next week and try to change those laws??

Oh yeah that'll go over bigly.

The supreme court can overturn any law deemed not lawful or that interfered with constitutional rights.

The Constitution (of the US) doesn't even *REQUIRE* an election, Dumbass.

the 12th amendment requires election for president.

Legal Provisions Relevant to the Electoral College Process

The Electoral College website now has an easy-to-remember address. Make sure to update your bookmarks! THE CONSTITUTION Article II Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

www.archives.gov

also citizens are guaranteed right to vote by 15th amendment, 19th amendment,. 24th and 26th.

BULLSHIT.

Article 2, QUOTE:

>> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector. <<​

"Such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" is currently holding an election day and then translating that to the EC. But it could be throwing darts at pictures of candidates, drawing names from a hat, rolling dice, whatever. It could be, and has been, state legs appointing electors but that hasn't been done since before the Civil War.

It has often been claimed that a state legislature can chose electors in any manner it choses. That is true but it's
only true if the manner of selecting electors is set by the state law prior to the election. The state legislature can not change the manner of selection after the vote. Congress’s enactment of a Uniform National Election Day Act that prohibits the choice of electors from being made based on elections held or laws passed after Election Day. In other words, a state legislature that isn't happy with the election results can't appoint it's own slate of electors to override the vote of the people. If a state legislature wants to do this, it must be specified in state law before the election.

No, State Legislatures Cannot Overrule the Popular Vote

Trump supporters' idea of state Legislatures' picking electors to overrule Americans' votes in Pennsylvania or elsewhere is a complete non-starter.

www.justsecurity.org

There is no reason to think that's constitutional.

Certainly no reason to think a 2020 court would agree. Constiution is very brief and clear on this issue. Congress have very specifically mandated powers, mostly to set dates for things. Not overly broad powers about setting dates for the end of election law changes. That wasn't in there.

It's only a few paragraphs....WHy you think congress can just willy nilly interject itself legally I don't know. That won't be the opinion of hte highest court in the land.

There is no reason to expect the court will overturn the law. In fact, there is no reason to expect that they would even hear the case. To think that the founder's intent was to allow a state legislature to change the ground rules for a federal election after the election is held is absurd. Since the constitution does not allow congress to pass ex post facto laws and essential every state forbids them there is no reason expect a court would allow it.

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

Ex post facto law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Juicin]

E - none of the above.

The several states will certify their results in the next few weeks and name their electors, those electors will vote on December 14, and that will be that. Same as any other election.

Rump of course will fire off petulant twits about how the Electoral College is "a disaster for a democracy" and they're all "losers" and proceed to melt into a corner sucking his thumb, rocking and making moaning noises for the next month. With any luck it will be live-streamed.

What makes you think republican [sic] state legislatures wont choose different electors?

The two party system has no real power under law

They can't. So says existing state laws.

It ain't a question of "the two party system". It's how the states handle the election, by their state's OWN LAW.
You're actually suggesting they're going to convene next week and try to change those laws??

Oh yeah that'll go over bigly.

The supreme court can overturn any law deemed not lawful or that interfered with constitutional rights.

The Constitution (of the US) doesn't even *REQUIRE* an election, Dumbass.

the 12th amendment requires election for president.

Legal Provisions Relevant to the Electoral College Process

The Electoral College website now has an easy-to-remember address. Make sure to update your bookmarks! THE CONSTITUTION Article II Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

www.archives.gov

also citizens are guaranteed right to vote by 15th amendment, 19th amendment,. 24th and 26th.

BULLSHIT.

Article 2, QUOTE:

>> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector. <<​

"Such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" is currently holding an election day and then translating that to the EC. But it could be throwing darts at pictures of candidates, drawing names from a hat, rolling dice, whatever. It could be, and has been, state legs appointing electors but that hasn't been done since before the Civil War.

It has often been claimed that a state legislature can chose electors in any manner it choses. That is true but it's
only true if the manner of selecting electors is set by the state law prior to the election. The state legislature can not change the manner of selection after the vote. Congress’s enactment of a Uniform National Election Day Act that prohibits the choice of electors from being made based on elections held or laws passed after Election Day. In other words, a state legislature that isn't happy with the election results can't appoint it's own slate of electors to override the vote of the people. If a state legislature wants to do this, it must be specified in state law before the election.

No, State Legislatures Cannot Overrule the Popular Vote

Trump supporters' idea of state Legislatures' picking electors to overrule Americans' votes in Pennsylvania or elsewhere is a complete non-starter.

www.justsecurity.org

There is no reason to think that's constitutional.

Certainly no reason to think a 2020 court would agree. Constiution is very brief and clear on this issue. Congress have very specifically mandated powers, mostly to set dates for things. Not overly broad powers about setting dates for the end of election law changes. That wasn't in there.

It's only a few paragraphs....WHy you think congress can just willy nilly interject itself legally I don't know. That won't be the opinion of hte highest court in the land.

There is no reason to expect the court will overturn the law. In fact, there is no reason to expect that they would even hear the case. To think that the founder's intent was to allow a state legislature to change the ground rules for a federal election after the election is held is absurd. Since the constitution does not allow congress to pass ex post facto laws and essential every state forbids them there is no reason expect a court would allow it.

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

Ex post facto law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The founding fathers did not believe in democracy, we are a republic

And there are other avenues as well. Like for example Pence could say he finds the electors unacceptable and have new ones appointed.

Fear of mobs lynching them was a pretty common theme among early american elites.

By modern norms it's taboo. But our constitution/electoral system enshrines this sort of intervention very directly.

 

[Pogo]

E - none of the above.

The several states will certify their results in the next few weeks and name their electors, those electors will vote on December 14, and that will be that. Same as any other election.

Rump of course will fire off petulant twits about how the Electoral College is "a disaster for a democracy" and they're all "losers" and proceed to melt into a corner sucking his thumb, rocking and making moaning noises for the next month. With any luck it will be live-streamed.

What makes you think republican [sic] state legislatures wont choose different electors?

The two party system has no real power under law

They can't. So says existing state laws.

It ain't a question of "the two party system". It's how the states handle the election, by their state's OWN LAW.
You're actually suggesting they're going to convene next week and try to change those laws??

Oh yeah that'll go over bigly.

The supreme court can overturn any law deemed not lawful or that interfered with constitutional rights.

The Constitution (of the US) doesn't even *REQUIRE* an election, Dumbass.

the 12th amendment requires election for president.

Legal Provisions Relevant to the Electoral College Process

The Electoral College website now has an easy-to-remember address. Make sure to update your bookmarks! THE CONSTITUTION Article II Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

www.archives.gov

also citizens are guaranteed right to vote by 15th amendment, 19th amendment,. 24th and 26th.

BULLSHIT.

Article 2, QUOTE:

>> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector. <<​

"Such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" is currently holding an election day and then translating that to the EC. But it could be throwing darts at pictures of candidates, drawing names from a hat, rolling dice, whatever. It could be, and has been, state legs appointing electors but that hasn't been done since before the Civil War.

It has often been claimed that a state legislature can chose electors in any manner it choses. That is true but it's
only true if the manner of selecting electors is set by the state law prior to the election. The state legislature can not change the manner of selection after the vote. Congress’s enactment of a Uniform National Election Day Act that prohibits the choice of electors from being made based on elections held or laws passed after Election Day. In other words, a state legislature that isn't happy with the election results can't appoint it's own slate of electors to override the vote of the people. If a state legislature wants to do this, it must be specified in state law before the election.

No, State Legislatures Cannot Overrule the Popular Vote

Trump supporters' idea of state Legislatures' picking electors to overrule Americans' votes in Pennsylvania or elsewhere is a complete non-starter.

www.justsecurity.org

There is no reason to think that's constitutional.

Certainly no reason to think a 2020 court would agree. Constiution is very brief and clear on this issue. Congress have very specifically mandated powers, mostly to set dates for things. Not overly broad powers about setting dates for the end of election law changes. That wasn't in there.

It's only a few paragraphs....WHy you think congress can just willy nilly interject itself legally I don't know. That won't be the opinion of hte highest court in the land.

There is no reason to expect the court will overturn the law. In fact, there is no reason to expect that they would even hear the case. To think that the founder's intent was to allow a state legislature to change the ground rules for a federal election after the election is held is absurd. Since the constitution does not allow congress to pass ex post facto laws and essential every state forbids them there is no reason expect a court would allow it.

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

Ex post facto law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The founding fathers did not believe in democracy, we are a republic

And there are other avenues as well. Like for example Pence could say he finds the electors unacceptable and have new ones appointed.

Fear of mobs lynching them was a pretty common theme among early american elites.

By modern norms it's taboo. But our constitution/electoral system enshrines this sort of intervention very directly.

Pence is not a governor any more, so no, he can't. Wouldn't matter anyway since Indiana voted for him and Rump.

Way to think it through.

 

[Juicin]

E - none of the above.

The several states will certify their results in the next few weeks and name their electors, those electors will vote on December 14, and that will be that. Same as any other election.

Rump of course will fire off petulant twits about how the Electoral College is "a disaster for a democracy" and they're all "losers" and proceed to melt into a corner sucking his thumb, rocking and making moaning noises for the next month. With any luck it will be live-streamed.

What makes you think republican [sic] state legislatures wont choose different electors?

The two party system has no real power under law

They can't. So says existing state laws.

It ain't a question of "the two party system". It's how the states handle the election, by their state's OWN LAW.
You're actually suggesting they're going to convene next week and try to change those laws??

Oh yeah that'll go over bigly.

The supreme court can overturn any law deemed not lawful or that interfered with constitutional rights.

The Constitution (of the US) doesn't even *REQUIRE* an election, Dumbass.

the 12th amendment requires election for president.

Legal Provisions Relevant to the Electoral College Process

The Electoral College website now has an easy-to-remember address. Make sure to update your bookmarks! THE CONSTITUTION Article II Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

www.archives.gov

also citizens are guaranteed right to vote by 15th amendment, 19th amendment,. 24th and 26th.

BULLSHIT.

Article 2, QUOTE:

>> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector. <<​

"Such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" is currently holding an election day and then translating that to the EC. But it could be throwing darts at pictures of candidates, drawing names from a hat, rolling dice, whatever. It could be, and has been, state legs appointing electors but that hasn't been done since before the Civil War.

It has often been claimed that a state legislature can chose electors in any manner it choses. That is true but it's
only true if the manner of selecting electors is set by the state law prior to the election. The state legislature can not change the manner of selection after the vote. Congress’s enactment of a Uniform National Election Day Act that prohibits the choice of electors from being made based on elections held or laws passed after Election Day. In other words, a state legislature that isn't happy with the election results can't appoint it's own slate of electors to override the vote of the people. If a state legislature wants to do this, it must be specified in state law before the election.

No, State Legislatures Cannot Overrule the Popular Vote

Trump supporters' idea of state Legislatures' picking electors to overrule Americans' votes in Pennsylvania or elsewhere is a complete non-starter.

www.justsecurity.org

There is no reason to think that's constitutional.

Certainly no reason to think a 2020 court would agree. Constiution is very brief and clear on this issue. Congress have very specifically mandated powers, mostly to set dates for things. Not overly broad powers about setting dates for the end of election law changes. That wasn't in there.

It's only a few paragraphs....WHy you think congress can just willy nilly interject itself legally I don't know. That won't be the opinion of hte highest court in the land.

There is no reason to expect the court will overturn the law. In fact, there is no reason to expect that they would even hear the case. To think that the founder's intent was to allow a state legislature to change the ground rules for a federal election after the election is held is absurd. Since the constitution does not allow congress to pass ex post facto laws and essential every state forbids them there is no reason expect a court would allow it.

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

Ex post facto law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The founding fathers did not believe in democracy, we are a republic

And there are other avenues as well. Like for example Pence could say he finds the electors unacceptable and have new ones appointed.

Fear of mobs lynching them was a pretty common theme among early american elites.

By modern norms it's taboo. But our constitution/electoral system enshrines this sort of intervention very directly.

Pence is not a governor any more, so no, he can't. Wouldn't matter anyway since Indiana voted for Rump.

Way to think it through.

VP is leader of the senate? lol

You name some of the reasons your take is stupid

Sorry you were unaware of the one actual official function a VP has

 

[esalla]

E - none of the above.

The several states will certify their results in the next few weeks and name their electors, those electors will vote on December 14, and that will be that. Same as any other election.

Rump of course will fire off petulant twits about how the Electoral College is "a disaster for a democracy" and they're all "losers" and proceed to melt into a corner sucking his thumb, rocking and making moaning noises for the next month. With any luck it will be live-streamed.

What makes you think republican [sic] state legislatures wont choose different electors?

The two party system has no real power under law

They can't. So says existing state laws.

It ain't a question of "the two party system". It's how the states handle the election, by their state's OWN LAW.
You're actually suggesting they're going to convene next week and try to change those laws??

Oh yeah that'll go over bigly.

The supreme court can overturn any law deemed not lawful or that interfered with constitutional rights.

The Constitution (of the US) doesn't even *REQUIRE* an election, Dumbass.

the 12th amendment requires election for president.

Legal Provisions Relevant to the Electoral College Process

The Electoral College website now has an easy-to-remember address. Make sure to update your bookmarks! THE CONSTITUTION Article II Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

www.archives.gov

also citizens are guaranteed right to vote by 15th amendment, 19th amendment,. 24th and 26th.

BULLSHIT.

Article 2, QUOTE:

>> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector. <<​

"Such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" is currently holding an election day and then translating that to the EC. But it could be throwing darts at pictures of candidates, drawing names from a hat, rolling dice, whatever. It could be, and has been, state legs appointing electors but that hasn't been done since before the Civil War.

It has often been claimed that a state legislature can chose electors in any manner it choses. That is true but it's
only true if the manner of selecting electors is set by the state law prior to the election. The state legislature can not change the manner of selection after the vote. Congress’s enactment of a Uniform National Election Day Act that prohibits the choice of electors from being made based on elections held or laws passed after Election Day. In other words, a state legislature that isn't happy with the election results can't appoint it's own slate of electors to override the vote of the people. If a state legislature wants to do this, it must be specified in state law before the election.

No, State Legislatures Cannot Overrule the Popular Vote

Trump supporters' idea of state Legislatures' picking electors to overrule Americans' votes in Pennsylvania or elsewhere is a complete non-starter.

www.justsecurity.org

There is no reason to think that's constitutional.

Certainly no reason to think a 2020 court would agree. Constiution is very brief and clear on this issue. Congress have very specifically mandated powers, mostly to set dates for things. Not overly broad powers about setting dates for the end of election law changes. That wasn't in there.

It's only a few paragraphs....WHy you think congress can just willy nilly interject itself legally I don't know. That won't be the opinion of hte highest court in the land.

There is no reason to expect the court will overturn the law. In fact, there is no reason to expect that they would even hear the case. To think that the founder's intent was to allow a state legislature to change the ground rules for a federal election after the election is held is absurd. Since the constitution does not allow congress to pass ex post facto laws and essential every state forbids them there is no reason expect a court would allow it.

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

Ex post facto law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The founding fathers did not believe in democracy, we are a republic

And there are other avenues as well. Like for example Pence could say he finds the electors unacceptable and have new ones appointed.

Fear of mobs lynching them was a pretty common theme among early american elites.

By modern norms it's taboo. But our constitution/electoral system enshrines this sort of intervention very directly.

Pence is not a governor any more, so no, he can't. Wouldn't matter anyway since Indiana voted for Rump.

Way to think it through.

VP is leader of the senate? lol

He cast all tiebreaking votes

 

[Pogo]

E - none of the above.

The several states will certify their results in the next few weeks and name their electors, those electors will vote on December 14, and that will be that. Same as any other election.

Rump of course will fire off petulant twits about how the Electoral College is "a disaster for a democracy" and they're all "losers" and proceed to melt into a corner sucking his thumb, rocking and making moaning noises for the next month. With any luck it will be live-streamed.

What makes you think republican [sic] state legislatures wont choose different electors?

The two party system has no real power under law

They can't. So says existing state laws.

It ain't a question of "the two party system". It's how the states handle the election, by their state's OWN LAW.
You're actually suggesting they're going to convene next week and try to change those laws??

Oh yeah that'll go over bigly.

The supreme court can overturn any law deemed not lawful or that interfered with constitutional rights.

The Constitution (of the US) doesn't even *REQUIRE* an election, Dumbass.

the 12th amendment requires election for president.

Legal Provisions Relevant to the Electoral College Process

The Electoral College website now has an easy-to-remember address. Make sure to update your bookmarks! THE CONSTITUTION Article II Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

www.archives.gov

also citizens are guaranteed right to vote by 15th amendment, 19th amendment,. 24th and 26th.

BULLSHIT.

Article 2, QUOTE:

>> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector. <<​

"Such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" is currently holding an election day and then translating that to the EC. But it could be throwing darts at pictures of candidates, drawing names from a hat, rolling dice, whatever. It could be, and has been, state legs appointing electors but that hasn't been done since before the Civil War.

It has often been claimed that a state legislature can chose electors in any manner it choses. That is true but it's
only true if the manner of selecting electors is set by the state law prior to the election. The state legislature can not change the manner of selection after the vote. Congress’s enactment of a Uniform National Election Day Act that prohibits the choice of electors from being made based on elections held or laws passed after Election Day. In other words, a state legislature that isn't happy with the election results can't appoint it's own slate of electors to override the vote of the people. If a state legislature wants to do this, it must be specified in state law before the election.

No, State Legislatures Cannot Overrule the Popular Vote

Trump supporters' idea of state Legislatures' picking electors to overrule Americans' votes in Pennsylvania or elsewhere is a complete non-starter.

www.justsecurity.org

There is no reason to think that's constitutional.

Certainly no reason to think a 2020 court would agree. Constiution is very brief and clear on this issue. Congress have very specifically mandated powers, mostly to set dates for things. Not overly broad powers about setting dates for the end of election law changes. That wasn't in there.

It's only a few paragraphs....WHy you think congress can just willy nilly interject itself legally I don't know. That won't be the opinion of hte highest court in the land.

There is no reason to expect the court will overturn the law. In fact, there is no reason to expect that they would even hear the case. To think that the founder's intent was to allow a state legislature to change the ground rules for a federal election after the election is held is absurd. Since the constitution does not allow congress to pass ex post facto laws and essential every state forbids them there is no reason expect a court would allow it.

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

Ex post facto law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The founding fathers did not believe in democracy, we are a republic

And there are other avenues as well. Like for example Pence could say he finds the electors unacceptable and have new ones appointed.

Fear of mobs lynching them was a pretty common theme among early american elites.

By modern norms it's taboo. But our constitution/electoral system enshrines this sort of intervention very directly.

Pence is not a governor any more, so no, he can't. Wouldn't matter anyway since Indiana voted for Rump.

Way to think it through.

VP is leader of the senate? lol

He cast all tiebreaking votes

Not in Electoral College vote, DUMBASS.
Besides which, it ain't even close to a tie anyway. Biden's got more EVs locked up than Rump got four long and tedious years ago.

 

[Juicin]

E - none of the above.

The several states will certify their results in the next few weeks and name their electors, those electors will vote on December 14, and that will be that. Same as any other election.

Rump of course will fire off petulant twits about how the Electoral College is "a disaster for a democracy" and they're all "losers" and proceed to melt into a corner sucking his thumb, rocking and making moaning noises for the next month. With any luck it will be live-streamed.

What makes you think republican [sic] state legislatures wont choose different electors?

The two party system has no real power under law

They can't. So says existing state laws.

It ain't a question of "the two party system". It's how the states handle the election, by their state's OWN LAW.
You're actually suggesting they're going to convene next week and try to change those laws??

Oh yeah that'll go over bigly.

The supreme court can overturn any law deemed not lawful or that interfered with constitutional rights.

The Constitution (of the US) doesn't even *REQUIRE* an election, Dumbass.

the 12th amendment requires election for president.

Legal Provisions Relevant to the Electoral College Process

The Electoral College website now has an easy-to-remember address. Make sure to update your bookmarks! THE CONSTITUTION Article II Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

www.archives.gov

also citizens are guaranteed right to vote by 15th amendment, 19th amendment,. 24th and 26th.

BULLSHIT.

Article 2, QUOTE:

>> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector. <<​

"Such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" is currently holding an election day and then translating that to the EC. But it could be throwing darts at pictures of candidates, drawing names from a hat, rolling dice, whatever. It could be, and has been, state legs appointing electors but that hasn't been done since before the Civil War.

It has often been claimed that a state legislature can chose electors in any manner it choses. That is true but it's
only true if the manner of selecting electors is set by the state law prior to the election. The state legislature can not change the manner of selection after the vote. Congress’s enactment of a Uniform National Election Day Act that prohibits the choice of electors from being made based on elections held or laws passed after Election Day. In other words, a state legislature that isn't happy with the election results can't appoint it's own slate of electors to override the vote of the people. If a state legislature wants to do this, it must be specified in state law before the election.

No, State Legislatures Cannot Overrule the Popular Vote

Trump supporters' idea of state Legislatures' picking electors to overrule Americans' votes in Pennsylvania or elsewhere is a complete non-starter.

www.justsecurity.org

There is no reason to think that's constitutional.

Certainly no reason to think a 2020 court would agree. Constiution is very brief and clear on this issue. Congress have very specifically mandated powers, mostly to set dates for things. Not overly broad powers about setting dates for the end of election law changes. That wasn't in there.

It's only a few paragraphs....WHy you think congress can just willy nilly interject itself legally I don't know. That won't be the opinion of hte highest court in the land.

There is no reason to expect the court will overturn the law. In fact, there is no reason to expect that they would even hear the case. To think that the founder's intent was to allow a state legislature to change the ground rules for a federal election after the election is held is absurd. Since the constitution does not allow congress to pass ex post facto laws and essential every state forbids them there is no reason expect a court would allow it.

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

Ex post facto law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The founding fathers did not believe in democracy, we are a republic

And there are other avenues as well. Like for example Pence could say he finds the electors unacceptable and have new ones appointed.

Fear of mobs lynching them was a pretty common theme among early american elites.

By modern norms it's taboo. But our constitution/electoral system enshrines this sort of intervention very directly.

Pence is not a governor any more, so no, he can't. Wouldn't matter anyway since Indiana voted for Rump.

Way to think it through.

VP is leader of the senate? lol

He cast all tiebreaking votes

Not in Electoral College vote, DUMBASS.

they control electors

who do you think votes in the electoral college? lol

the senate has to accept them, they are under no legal obligation to do so

What you think they just organically get together? No there are federal steps to the process.

 

[Pogo]

E - none of the above.

The several states will certify their results in the next few weeks and name their electors, those electors will vote on December 14, and that will be that. Same as any other election.

Rump of course will fire off petulant twits about how the Electoral College is "a disaster for a democracy" and they're all "losers" and proceed to melt into a corner sucking his thumb, rocking and making moaning noises for the next month. With any luck it will be live-streamed.

What makes you think republican [sic] state legislatures wont choose different electors?

The two party system has no real power under law

They can't. So says existing state laws.

It ain't a question of "the two party system". It's how the states handle the election, by their state's OWN LAW.
You're actually suggesting they're going to convene next week and try to change those laws??

Oh yeah that'll go over bigly.

The supreme court can overturn any law deemed not lawful or that interfered with constitutional rights.

The Constitution (of the US) doesn't even *REQUIRE* an election, Dumbass.

the 12th amendment requires election for president.

Legal Provisions Relevant to the Electoral College Process

The Electoral College website now has an easy-to-remember address. Make sure to update your bookmarks! THE CONSTITUTION Article II Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

www.archives.gov

also citizens are guaranteed right to vote by 15th amendment, 19th amendment,. 24th and 26th.

BULLSHIT.

Article 2, QUOTE:

>> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector. <<​

"Such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" is currently holding an election day and then translating that to the EC. But it could be throwing darts at pictures of candidates, drawing names from a hat, rolling dice, whatever. It could be, and has been, state legs appointing electors but that hasn't been done since before the Civil War.

It has often been claimed that a state legislature can chose electors in any manner it choses. That is true but it's
only true if the manner of selecting electors is set by the state law prior to the election. The state legislature can not change the manner of selection after the vote. Congress’s enactment of a Uniform National Election Day Act that prohibits the choice of electors from being made based on elections held or laws passed after Election Day. In other words, a state legislature that isn't happy with the election results can't appoint it's own slate of electors to override the vote of the people. If a state legislature wants to do this, it must be specified in state law before the election.

No, State Legislatures Cannot Overrule the Popular Vote

Trump supporters' idea of state Legislatures' picking electors to overrule Americans' votes in Pennsylvania or elsewhere is a complete non-starter.

www.justsecurity.org

There is no reason to think that's constitutional.

Certainly no reason to think a 2020 court would agree. Constiution is very brief and clear on this issue. Congress have very specifically mandated powers, mostly to set dates for things. Not overly broad powers about setting dates for the end of election law changes. That wasn't in there.

It's only a few paragraphs....WHy you think congress can just willy nilly interject itself legally I don't know. That won't be the opinion of hte highest court in the land.

There is no reason to expect the court will overturn the law. In fact, there is no reason to expect that they would even hear the case. To think that the founder's intent was to allow a state legislature to change the ground rules for a federal election after the election is held is absurd. Since the constitution does not allow congress to pass ex post facto laws and essential every state forbids them there is no reason expect a court would allow it.

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

Ex post facto law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The founding fathers did not believe in democracy, we are a republic

And there are other avenues as well. Like for example Pence could say he finds the electors unacceptable and have new ones appointed.

Fear of mobs lynching them was a pretty common theme among early american elites.

By modern norms it's taboo. But our constitution/electoral system enshrines this sort of intervention very directly.

Pence is not a governor any more, so no, he can't. Wouldn't matter anyway since Indiana voted for Rump.

Way to think it through.

VP is leader of the senate? lol

You name some of the reasons your take is stupid

Sorry you were unaware of the one actual official function a VP has

VP doesn't have jack friggety shit to say about who the Electrical College votes for. He's a spectator.
Prove me wrong, jackwagon.

 

[Pogo]

E - none of the above.

The several states will certify their results in the next few weeks and name their electors, those electors will vote on December 14, and that will be that. Same as any other election.

Rump of course will fire off petulant twits about how the Electoral College is "a disaster for a democracy" and they're all "losers" and proceed to melt into a corner sucking his thumb, rocking and making moaning noises for the next month. With any luck it will be live-streamed.

What makes you think republican [sic] state legislatures wont choose different electors?

The two party system has no real power under law

They can't. So says existing state laws.

It ain't a question of "the two party system". It's how the states handle the election, by their state's OWN LAW.
You're actually suggesting they're going to convene next week and try to change those laws??

Oh yeah that'll go over bigly.

The supreme court can overturn any law deemed not lawful or that interfered with constitutional rights.

The Constitution (of the US) doesn't even *REQUIRE* an election, Dumbass.

the 12th amendment requires election for president.

Legal Provisions Relevant to the Electoral College Process

The Electoral College website now has an easy-to-remember address. Make sure to update your bookmarks! THE CONSTITUTION Article II Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

www.archives.gov

also citizens are guaranteed right to vote by 15th amendment, 19th amendment,. 24th and 26th.

BULLSHIT.

Article 2, QUOTE:

>> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector. <<​

"Such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" is currently holding an election day and then translating that to the EC. But it could be throwing darts at pictures of candidates, drawing names from a hat, rolling dice, whatever. It could be, and has been, state legs appointing electors but that hasn't been done since before the Civil War.

It has often been claimed that a state legislature can chose electors in any manner it choses. That is true but it's
only true if the manner of selecting electors is set by the state law prior to the election. The state legislature can not change the manner of selection after the vote. Congress’s enactment of a Uniform National Election Day Act that prohibits the choice of electors from being made based on elections held or laws passed after Election Day. In other words, a state legislature that isn't happy with the election results can't appoint it's own slate of electors to override the vote of the people. If a state legislature wants to do this, it must be specified in state law before the election.

No, State Legislatures Cannot Overrule the Popular Vote

Trump supporters' idea of state Legislatures' picking electors to overrule Americans' votes in Pennsylvania or elsewhere is a complete non-starter.

www.justsecurity.org

There is no reason to think that's constitutional.

Certainly no reason to think a 2020 court would agree. Constiution is very brief and clear on this issue. Congress have very specifically mandated powers, mostly to set dates for things. Not overly broad powers about setting dates for the end of election law changes. That wasn't in there.

It's only a few paragraphs....WHy you think congress can just willy nilly interject itself legally I don't know. That won't be the opinion of hte highest court in the land.

There is no reason to expect the court will overturn the law. In fact, there is no reason to expect that they would even hear the case. To think that the founder's intent was to allow a state legislature to change the ground rules for a federal election after the election is held is absurd. Since the constitution does not allow congress to pass ex post facto laws and essential every state forbids them there is no reason expect a court would allow it.

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

Ex post facto law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The founding fathers did not believe in democracy, we are a republic

And there are other avenues as well. Like for example Pence could say he finds the electors unacceptable and have new ones appointed.

Fear of mobs lynching them was a pretty common theme among early american elites.

By modern norms it's taboo. But our constitution/electoral system enshrines this sort of intervention very directly.

Pence is not a governor any more, so no, he can't. Wouldn't matter anyway since Indiana voted for Rump.

Way to think it through.

VP is leader of the senate? lol

He cast all tiebreaking votes

Not in Electoral College vote, DUMBASS.

they control electors

who do you think votes in the electoral college? lol

the senate has to accept them, they are under no leagl [sic] obligation to do so

Actually they are.

 

[Juicin]

E - none of the above.

The several states will certify their results in the next few weeks and name their electors, those electors will vote on December 14, and that will be that. Same as any other election.

Rump of course will fire off petulant twits about how the Electoral College is "a disaster for a democracy" and they're all "losers" and proceed to melt into a corner sucking his thumb, rocking and making moaning noises for the next month. With any luck it will be live-streamed.

What makes you think republican [sic] state legislatures wont choose different electors?

The two party system has no real power under law

They can't. So says existing state laws.

It ain't a question of "the two party system". It's how the states handle the election, by their state's OWN LAW.
You're actually suggesting they're going to convene next week and try to change those laws??

Oh yeah that'll go over bigly.

The supreme court can overturn any law deemed not lawful or that interfered with constitutional rights.

The Constitution (of the US) doesn't even *REQUIRE* an election, Dumbass.

the 12th amendment requires election for president.

Legal Provisions Relevant to the Electoral College Process

The Electoral College website now has an easy-to-remember address. Make sure to update your bookmarks! THE CONSTITUTION Article II Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

www.archives.gov

also citizens are guaranteed right to vote by 15th amendment, 19th amendment,. 24th and 26th.

BULLSHIT.

Article 2, QUOTE:

>> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector. <<​

"Such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" is currently holding an election day and then translating that to the EC. But it could be throwing darts at pictures of candidates, drawing names from a hat, rolling dice, whatever. It could be, and has been, state legs appointing electors but that hasn't been done since before the Civil War.

It has often been claimed that a state legislature can chose electors in any manner it choses. That is true but it's
only true if the manner of selecting electors is set by the state law prior to the election. The state legislature can not change the manner of selection after the vote. Congress’s enactment of a Uniform National Election Day Act that prohibits the choice of electors from being made based on elections held or laws passed after Election Day. In other words, a state legislature that isn't happy with the election results can't appoint it's own slate of electors to override the vote of the people. If a state legislature wants to do this, it must be specified in state law before the election.

No, State Legislatures Cannot Overrule the Popular Vote

Trump supporters' idea of state Legislatures' picking electors to overrule Americans' votes in Pennsylvania or elsewhere is a complete non-starter.

www.justsecurity.org

There is no reason to think that's constitutional.

Certainly no reason to think a 2020 court would agree. Constiution is very brief and clear on this issue. Congress have very specifically mandated powers, mostly to set dates for things. Not overly broad powers about setting dates for the end of election law changes. That wasn't in there.

It's only a few paragraphs....WHy you think congress can just willy nilly interject itself legally I don't know. That won't be the opinion of hte highest court in the land.

There is no reason to expect the court will overturn the law. In fact, there is no reason to expect that they would even hear the case. To think that the founder's intent was to allow a state legislature to change the ground rules for a federal election after the election is held is absurd. Since the constitution does not allow congress to pass ex post facto laws and essential every state forbids them there is no reason expect a court would allow it.

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

Ex post facto law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The founding fathers did not believe in democracy, we are a republic

And there are other avenues as well. Like for example Pence could say he finds the electors unacceptable and have new ones appointed.

Fear of mobs lynching them was a pretty common theme among early american elites.

By modern norms it's taboo. But our constitution/electoral system enshrines this sort of intervention very directly.

Pence is not a governor any more, so no, he can't. Wouldn't matter anyway since Indiana voted for Rump.

Way to think it through.

VP is leader of the senate? lol

He cast all tiebreaking votes

Not in Electoral College vote, DUMBASS.

they control electors

who do you think votes in the electoral college? lol

the senate has to accept them, they are under no leagl [sic] obligation to do so

Actually they are.

No it's just a norm, again the founding fathers had no love of democracy.

System is designed to have legislative checks at both the state and federal level where they can subvert the democratic process

 

[Juicin]

E - none of the above.

The several states will certify their results in the next few weeks and name their electors, those electors will vote on December 14, and that will be that. Same as any other election.

Rump of course will fire off petulant twits about how the Electoral College is "a disaster for a democracy" and they're all "losers" and proceed to melt into a corner sucking his thumb, rocking and making moaning noises for the next month. With any luck it will be live-streamed.

What makes you think republican [sic] state legislatures wont choose different electors?

The two party system has no real power under law

They can't. So says existing state laws.

It ain't a question of "the two party system". It's how the states handle the election, by their state's OWN LAW.
You're actually suggesting they're going to convene next week and try to change those laws??

Oh yeah that'll go over bigly.

The supreme court can overturn any law deemed not lawful or that interfered with constitutional rights.

The Constitution (of the US) doesn't even *REQUIRE* an election, Dumbass.

the 12th amendment requires election for president.

Legal Provisions Relevant to the Electoral College Process

The Electoral College website now has an easy-to-remember address. Make sure to update your bookmarks! THE CONSTITUTION Article II Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

www.archives.gov

also citizens are guaranteed right to vote by 15th amendment, 19th amendment,. 24th and 26th.

BULLSHIT.

Article 2, QUOTE:

>> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector. <<​

"Such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" is currently holding an election day and then translating that to the EC. But it could be throwing darts at pictures of candidates, drawing names from a hat, rolling dice, whatever. It could be, and has been, state legs appointing electors but that hasn't been done since before the Civil War.

It has often been claimed that a state legislature can chose electors in any manner it choses. That is true but it's
only true if the manner of selecting electors is set by the state law prior to the election. The state legislature can not change the manner of selection after the vote. Congress’s enactment of a Uniform National Election Day Act that prohibits the choice of electors from being made based on elections held or laws passed after Election Day. In other words, a state legislature that isn't happy with the election results can't appoint it's own slate of electors to override the vote of the people. If a state legislature wants to do this, it must be specified in state law before the election.

No, State Legislatures Cannot Overrule the Popular Vote

Trump supporters' idea of state Legislatures' picking electors to overrule Americans' votes in Pennsylvania or elsewhere is a complete non-starter.

www.justsecurity.org

There is no reason to think that's constitutional.

Certainly no reason to think a 2020 court would agree. Constiution is very brief and clear on this issue. Congress have very specifically mandated powers, mostly to set dates for things. Not overly broad powers about setting dates for the end of election law changes. That wasn't in there.

It's only a few paragraphs....WHy you think congress can just willy nilly interject itself legally I don't know. That won't be the opinion of hte highest court in the land.

There is no reason to expect the court will overturn the law. In fact, there is no reason to expect that they would even hear the case. To think that the founder's intent was to allow a state legislature to change the ground rules for a federal election after the election is held is absurd. Since the constitution does not allow congress to pass ex post facto laws and essential every state forbids them there is no reason expect a court would allow it.

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

Ex post facto law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The founding fathers did not believe in democracy, we are a republic

And there are other avenues as well. Like for example Pence could say he finds the electors unacceptable and have new ones appointed.

Fear of mobs lynching them was a pretty common theme among early american elites.

By modern norms it's taboo. But our constitution/electoral system enshrines this sort of intervention very directly.

Pence is not a governor any more, so no, he can't. Wouldn't matter anyway since Indiana voted for Rump.

Way to think it through.

VP is leader of the senate? lol

You name some of the reasons your take is stupid

Sorry you were unaware of the one actual official function a VP has

VP doesn't have jack friggety shit to say about who the Electrical College votes for. He's a spectator.
Prove me wrong, jackwagon.

When he's breaking the tie and letting collins vote against it you'll know how wrong you are

They'll let their riskier seats defect

 

[Pogo]

E - none of the above.

The several states will certify their results in the next few weeks and name their electors, those electors will vote on December 14, and that will be that. Same as any other election.

Rump of course will fire off petulant twits about how the Electoral College is "a disaster for a democracy" and they're all "losers" and proceed to melt into a corner sucking his thumb, rocking and making moaning noises for the next month. With any luck it will be live-streamed.

What makes you think republican [sic] state legislatures wont choose different electors?

The two party system has no real power under law

They can't. So says existing state laws.

It ain't a question of "the two party system". It's how the states handle the election, by their state's OWN LAW.
You're actually suggesting they're going to convene next week and try to change those laws??

Oh yeah that'll go over bigly.

The supreme court can overturn any law deemed not lawful or that interfered with constitutional rights.

The Constitution (of the US) doesn't even *REQUIRE* an election, Dumbass.

the 12th amendment requires election for president.

Legal Provisions Relevant to the Electoral College Process

The Electoral College website now has an easy-to-remember address. Make sure to update your bookmarks! THE CONSTITUTION Article II Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

www.archives.gov

also citizens are guaranteed right to vote by 15th amendment, 19th amendment,. 24th and 26th.

BULLSHIT.

Article 2, QUOTE:

>> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector. <<​

"Such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" is currently holding an election day and then translating that to the EC. But it could be throwing darts at pictures of candidates, drawing names from a hat, rolling dice, whatever. It could be, and has been, state legs appointing electors but that hasn't been done since before the Civil War.

It has often been claimed that a state legislature can chose electors in any manner it choses. That is true but it's
only true if the manner of selecting electors is set by the state law prior to the election. The state legislature can not change the manner of selection after the vote. Congress’s enactment of a Uniform National Election Day Act that prohibits the choice of electors from being made based on elections held or laws passed after Election Day. In other words, a state legislature that isn't happy with the election results can't appoint it's own slate of electors to override the vote of the people. If a state legislature wants to do this, it must be specified in state law before the election.

No, State Legislatures Cannot Overrule the Popular Vote

Trump supporters' idea of state Legislatures' picking electors to overrule Americans' votes in Pennsylvania or elsewhere is a complete non-starter.

www.justsecurity.org

There is no reason to think that's constitutional.

Certainly no reason to think a 2020 court would agree. Constiution is very brief and clear on this issue. Congress have very specifically mandated powers, mostly to set dates for things. Not overly broad powers about setting dates for the end of election law changes. That wasn't in there.

It's only a few paragraphs....WHy you think congress can just willy nilly interject itself legally I don't know. That won't be the opinion of hte highest court in the land.

There is no reason to expect the court will overturn the law. In fact, there is no reason to expect that they would even hear the case. To think that the founder's intent was to allow a state legislature to change the ground rules for a federal election after the election is held is absurd. Since the constitution does not allow congress to pass ex post facto laws and essential every state forbids them there is no reason expect a court would allow it.

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

Ex post facto law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The founding fathers did not believe in democracy, we are a republic

And there are other avenues as well. Like for example Pence could say he finds the electors unacceptable and have new ones appointed.

Fear of mobs lynching them was a pretty common theme among early american elites.

By modern norms it's taboo. But our constitution/electoral system enshrines this sort of intervention very directly.

Pence is not a governor any more, so no, he can't. Wouldn't matter anyway since Indiana voted for Rump.

Way to think it through.

VP is leader of the senate? lol

He cast all tiebreaking votes

Not in Electoral College vote, DUMBASS.

they control electors

who do you think votes in the electoral college? lol

the senate has to accept them, they are under no leagl [sic] obligation to do so

Actually they are.

No it's just a norm, again the founding fathers had no love of democracy.

System is designed to have legislative checks at both the state and federal level where they can subvert the democratic process

You need a better Russian translator for your "American Civics for Dummies" books, Tovarich.

 

[Persistence Of Memory]

The Supreme Court and our new Associate Justice need to settle this.

 

[Pogo]

E - none of the above.

The several states will certify their results in the next few weeks and name their electors, those electors will vote on December 14, and that will be that. Same as any other election.

Rump of course will fire off petulant twits about how the Electoral College is "a disaster for a democracy" and they're all "losers" and proceed to melt into a corner sucking his thumb, rocking and making moaning noises for the next month. With any luck it will be live-streamed.

What makes you think republican [sic] state legislatures wont choose different electors?

The two party system has no real power under law

They can't. So says existing state laws.

It ain't a question of "the two party system". It's how the states handle the election, by their state's OWN LAW.
You're actually suggesting they're going to convene next week and try to change those laws??

Oh yeah that'll go over bigly.

The supreme court can overturn any law deemed not lawful or that interfered with constitutional rights.

The Constitution (of the US) doesn't even *REQUIRE* an election, Dumbass.

the 12th amendment requires election for president.

Legal Provisions Relevant to the Electoral College Process

The Electoral College website now has an easy-to-remember address. Make sure to update your bookmarks! THE CONSTITUTION Article II Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

www.archives.gov

also citizens are guaranteed right to vote by 15th amendment, 19th amendment,. 24th and 26th.

BULLSHIT.

Article 2, QUOTE:

>> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector. <<​

"Such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" is currently holding an election day and then translating that to the EC. But it could be throwing darts at pictures of candidates, drawing names from a hat, rolling dice, whatever. It could be, and has been, state legs appointing electors but that hasn't been done since before the Civil War.

It has often been claimed that a state legislature can chose electors in any manner it choses. That is true but it's
only true if the manner of selecting electors is set by the state law prior to the election. The state legislature can not change the manner of selection after the vote. Congress’s enactment of a Uniform National Election Day Act that prohibits the choice of electors from being made based on elections held or laws passed after Election Day. In other words, a state legislature that isn't happy with the election results can't appoint it's own slate of electors to override the vote of the people. If a state legislature wants to do this, it must be specified in state law before the election.

No, State Legislatures Cannot Overrule the Popular Vote

Trump supporters' idea of state Legislatures' picking electors to overrule Americans' votes in Pennsylvania or elsewhere is a complete non-starter.

www.justsecurity.org

There is no reason to think that's constitutional.

Certainly no reason to think a 2020 court would agree. Constiution is very brief and clear on this issue. Congress have very specifically mandated powers, mostly to set dates for things. Not overly broad powers about setting dates for the end of election law changes. That wasn't in there.

It's only a few paragraphs....WHy you think congress can just willy nilly interject itself legally I don't know. That won't be the opinion of hte highest court in the land.

There is no reason to expect the court will overturn the law. In fact, there is no reason to expect that they would even hear the case. To think that the founder's intent was to allow a state legislature to change the ground rules for a federal election after the election is held is absurd. Since the constitution does not allow congress to pass ex post facto laws and essential every state forbids them there is no reason expect a court would allow it.

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

Ex post facto law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The founding fathers did not believe in democracy, we are a republic

And there are other avenues as well. Like for example Pence could say he finds the electors unacceptable and have new ones appointed.

Fear of mobs lynching them was a pretty common theme among early american elites.

By modern norms it's taboo. But our constitution/electoral system enshrines this sort of intervention very directly.

Pence is not a governor any more, so no, he can't. Wouldn't matter anyway since Indiana voted for Rump.

Way to think it through.

VP is leader of the senate? lol

You name some of the reasons your take is stupid

Sorry you were unaware of the one actual official function a VP has

VP doesn't have jack friggety shit to say about who the Electrical College votes for. He's a spectator.
Prove me wrong, jackwagon.

When he's breaking the tie and letting collins vote against it you'll know how wrong you are

Again, as I wrote above --- "prove me wrong".

Get busy Hunior.

 

[Juicin]

E - none of the above.

The several states will certify their results in the next few weeks and name their electors, those electors will vote on December 14, and that will be that. Same as any other election.

Rump of course will fire off petulant twits about how the Electoral College is "a disaster for a democracy" and they're all "losers" and proceed to melt into a corner sucking his thumb, rocking and making moaning noises for the next month. With any luck it will be live-streamed.

What makes you think republican [sic] state legislatures wont choose different electors?

The two party system has no real power under law

They can't. So says existing state laws.

It ain't a question of "the two party system". It's how the states handle the election, by their state's OWN LAW.
You're actually suggesting they're going to convene next week and try to change those laws??

Oh yeah that'll go over bigly.

The supreme court can overturn any law deemed not lawful or that interfered with constitutional rights.

The Constitution (of the US) doesn't even *REQUIRE* an election, Dumbass.

the 12th amendment requires election for president.

Legal Provisions Relevant to the Electoral College Process

The Electoral College website now has an easy-to-remember address. Make sure to update your bookmarks! THE CONSTITUTION Article II Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

www.archives.gov

also citizens are guaranteed right to vote by 15th amendment, 19th amendment,. 24th and 26th.

BULLSHIT.

Article 2, QUOTE:

>> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector. <<​

"Such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" is currently holding an election day and then translating that to the EC. But it could be throwing darts at pictures of candidates, drawing names from a hat, rolling dice, whatever. It could be, and has been, state legs appointing electors but that hasn't been done since before the Civil War.

It has often been claimed that a state legislature can chose electors in any manner it choses. That is true but it's
only true if the manner of selecting electors is set by the state law prior to the election. The state legislature can not change the manner of selection after the vote. Congress’s enactment of a Uniform National Election Day Act that prohibits the choice of electors from being made based on elections held or laws passed after Election Day. In other words, a state legislature that isn't happy with the election results can't appoint it's own slate of electors to override the vote of the people. If a state legislature wants to do this, it must be specified in state law before the election.

No, State Legislatures Cannot Overrule the Popular Vote

Trump supporters' idea of state Legislatures' picking electors to overrule Americans' votes in Pennsylvania or elsewhere is a complete non-starter.

www.justsecurity.org

There is no reason to think that's constitutional.

Certainly no reason to think a 2020 court would agree. Constiution is very brief and clear on this issue. Congress have very specifically mandated powers, mostly to set dates for things. Not overly broad powers about setting dates for the end of election law changes. That wasn't in there.

It's only a few paragraphs....WHy you think congress can just willy nilly interject itself legally I don't know. That won't be the opinion of hte highest court in the land.

There is no reason to expect the court will overturn the law. In fact, there is no reason to expect that they would even hear the case. To think that the founder's intent was to allow a state legislature to change the ground rules for a federal election after the election is held is absurd. Since the constitution does not allow congress to pass ex post facto laws and essential every state forbids them there is no reason expect a court would allow it.

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

Ex post facto law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The founding fathers did not believe in democracy, we are a republic

And there are other avenues as well. Like for example Pence could say he finds the electors unacceptable and have new ones appointed.

Fear of mobs lynching them was a pretty common theme among early american elites.

By modern norms it's taboo. But our constitution/electoral system enshrines this sort of intervention very directly.

Pence is not a governor any more, so no, he can't. Wouldn't matter anyway since Indiana voted for Rump.

Way to think it through.

VP is leader of the senate? lol

He cast all tiebreaking votes

Not in Electoral College vote, DUMBASS.

they control electors

who do you think votes in the electoral college? lol

the senate has to accept them, they are under no leagl [sic] obligation to do so

Actually they are.

No it's just a norm, again the founding fathers had no love of democracy.

System is designed to have legislative checks at both the state and federal level where they can subvert the democratic process

You need a better Russian translator for your "American Civics for Dummies" books, Tovarich.

It's pretty clear if you think the democratic process is some how safely enshrined in our electoral system you weren't paying attention in any of the 10 times we went through our very very short history.

 

[Juicin]

E - none of the above.

The several states will certify their results in the next few weeks and name their electors, those electors will vote on December 14, and that will be that. Same as any other election.

Rump of course will fire off petulant twits about how the Electoral College is "a disaster for a democracy" and they're all "losers" and proceed to melt into a corner sucking his thumb, rocking and making moaning noises for the next month. With any luck it will be live-streamed.

What makes you think republican [sic] state legislatures wont choose different electors?

The two party system has no real power under law

They can't. So says existing state laws.

It ain't a question of "the two party system". It's how the states handle the election, by their state's OWN LAW.
You're actually suggesting they're going to convene next week and try to change those laws??

Oh yeah that'll go over bigly.

The supreme court can overturn any law deemed not lawful or that interfered with constitutional rights.

The Constitution (of the US) doesn't even *REQUIRE* an election, Dumbass.

the 12th amendment requires election for president.

Legal Provisions Relevant to the Electoral College Process

The Electoral College website now has an easy-to-remember address. Make sure to update your bookmarks! THE CONSTITUTION Article II Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

www.archives.gov

also citizens are guaranteed right to vote by 15th amendment, 19th amendment,. 24th and 26th.

BULLSHIT.

Article 2, QUOTE:

>> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector. <<​

"Such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" is currently holding an election day and then translating that to the EC. But it could be throwing darts at pictures of candidates, drawing names from a hat, rolling dice, whatever. It could be, and has been, state legs appointing electors but that hasn't been done since before the Civil War.

It has often been claimed that a state legislature can chose electors in any manner it choses. That is true but it's
only true if the manner of selecting electors is set by the state law prior to the election. The state legislature can not change the manner of selection after the vote. Congress’s enactment of a Uniform National Election Day Act that prohibits the choice of electors from being made based on elections held or laws passed after Election Day. In other words, a state legislature that isn't happy with the election results can't appoint it's own slate of electors to override the vote of the people. If a state legislature wants to do this, it must be specified in state law before the election.

No, State Legislatures Cannot Overrule the Popular Vote

Trump supporters' idea of state Legislatures' picking electors to overrule Americans' votes in Pennsylvania or elsewhere is a complete non-starter.

www.justsecurity.org

There is no reason to think that's constitutional.

Certainly no reason to think a 2020 court would agree. Constiution is very brief and clear on this issue. Congress have very specifically mandated powers, mostly to set dates for things. Not overly broad powers about setting dates for the end of election law changes. That wasn't in there.

It's only a few paragraphs....WHy you think congress can just willy nilly interject itself legally I don't know. That won't be the opinion of hte highest court in the land.

There is no reason to expect the court will overturn the law. In fact, there is no reason to expect that they would even hear the case. To think that the founder's intent was to allow a state legislature to change the ground rules for a federal election after the election is held is absurd. Since the constitution does not allow congress to pass ex post facto laws and essential every state forbids them there is no reason expect a court would allow it.

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

Ex post facto law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The founding fathers did not believe in democracy, we are a republic

And there are other avenues as well. Like for example Pence could say he finds the electors unacceptable and have new ones appointed.

Fear of mobs lynching them was a pretty common theme among early american elites.

By modern norms it's taboo. But our constitution/electoral system enshrines this sort of intervention very directly.

Pence is not a governor any more, so no, he can't. Wouldn't matter anyway since Indiana voted for Rump.

Way to think it through.

VP is leader of the senate? lol

You name some of the reasons your take is stupid

Sorry you were unaware of the one actual official function a VP has

VP doesn't have jack friggety shit to say about who the Electrical College votes for. He's a spectator.
Prove me wrong, jackwagon.

When he's breaking the tie and letting collins vote against it you'll know how wrong you are

Again, as I wrote above --- "prove me wrong".

Get busy Hunior.

You don't seem to undersatnd the incentives at play here. If they do this, they will purposely allow 3 senators to vote no so their re election chances are better in a state like Maine for collins or a more immediate swing state. Pence will be the one to do this, he'll have to put his face on it they'll make him do it.

Not only can they do it

It would almost 100% be Pence to be the one to break the tie if they decided to go forward with a plan like that.

 

[Turtlesoup]

E - none of the above.

The several states will certify their results in the next few weeks and name their electors, those electors will vote on December 14, and that will be that. Same as any other election.

Rump of course will fire off petulant twits about how the Electoral College is "a disaster for a democracy" and they're all "losers" and proceed to melt into a corner sucking his thumb, rocking and making moaning noises for the next month. With any luck it will be live-streamed.

What makes you think republican [sic] state legislatures wont choose different electors?

The two party system has no real power under law

They can't. So says existing state laws.

It ain't a question of "the two party system". It's how the states handle the election, by their state's OWN LAW.
You're actually suggesting they're going to convene next week and try to change those laws??

Oh yeah that'll go over bigly.

The supreme court can overturn any law deemed not lawful or that interfered with constitutional rights.

The Constitution (of the US) doesn't even *REQUIRE* an election, Dumbass.

the 12th amendment requires election for president.

Legal Provisions Relevant to the Electoral College Process

The Electoral College website now has an easy-to-remember address. Make sure to update your bookmarks! THE CONSTITUTION Article II Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

www.archives.gov

also citizens are guaranteed right to vote by 15th amendment, 19th amendment,. 24th and 26th.

BULLSHIT.

Article 2, QUOTE:

>> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector. <<​

"Such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" is currently holding an election day and then translating that to the EC. But it could be throwing darts at pictures of candidates, drawing names from a hat, rolling dice, whatever. It could be, and has been, state legs appointing electors but that hasn't been done since before the Civil War.

It has often been claimed that a state legislature can chose electors in any manner it choses. That is true but it's
only true if the manner of selecting electors is set by the state law prior to the election. The state legislature can not change the manner of selection after the vote. Congress’s enactment of a Uniform National Election Day Act that prohibits the choice of electors from being made based on elections held or laws passed after Election Day. In other words, a state legislature that isn't happy with the election results can't appoint it's own slate of electors to override the vote of the people. If a state legislature wants to do this, it must be specified in state law before the election.

No, State Legislatures Cannot Overrule the Popular Vote

Trump supporters' idea of state Legislatures' picking electors to overrule Americans' votes in Pennsylvania or elsewhere is a complete non-starter.

www.justsecurity.org

wouldn't be the state doing persay....The state can't change its laws/rules before and during the election despite the dems doing just this.....................BUT>>>>>
if they put in elector voters who vote for Trump, that is LEGAL. What the voters, electoral voters, is their free will.

 

[Pogo]

E - none of the above.

The several states will certify their results in the next few weeks and name their electors, those electors will vote on December 14, and that will be that. Same as any other election.

Rump of course will fire off petulant twits about how the Electoral College is "a disaster for a democracy" and they're all "losers" and proceed to melt into a corner sucking his thumb, rocking and making moaning noises for the next month. With any luck it will be live-streamed.

What makes you think republican [sic] state legislatures wont choose different electors?

The two party system has no real power under law

They can't. So says existing state laws.

It ain't a question of "the two party system". It's how the states handle the election, by their state's OWN LAW.
You're actually suggesting they're going to convene next week and try to change those laws??

Oh yeah that'll go over bigly.

The supreme court can overturn any law deemed not lawful or that interfered with constitutional rights.

The Constitution (of the US) doesn't even *REQUIRE* an election, Dumbass.

the 12th amendment requires election for president.

Legal Provisions Relevant to the Electoral College Process

The Electoral College website now has an easy-to-remember address. Make sure to update your bookmarks! THE CONSTITUTION Article II Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

www.archives.gov

also citizens are guaranteed right to vote by 15th amendment, 19th amendment,. 24th and 26th.

BULLSHIT.

Article 2, QUOTE:

>> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector. <<​

"Such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" is currently holding an election day and then translating that to the EC. But it could be throwing darts at pictures of candidates, drawing names from a hat, rolling dice, whatever. It could be, and has been, state legs appointing electors but that hasn't been done since before the Civil War.

It has often been claimed that a state legislature can chose electors in any manner it choses. That is true but it's
only true if the manner of selecting electors is set by the state law prior to the election. The state legislature can not change the manner of selection after the vote. Congress’s enactment of a Uniform National Election Day Act that prohibits the choice of electors from being made based on elections held or laws passed after Election Day. In other words, a state legislature that isn't happy with the election results can't appoint it's own slate of electors to override the vote of the people. If a state legislature wants to do this, it must be specified in state law before the election.

No, State Legislatures Cannot Overrule the Popular Vote

Trump supporters' idea of state Legislatures' picking electors to overrule Americans' votes in Pennsylvania or elsewhere is a complete non-starter.

www.justsecurity.org

There is no reason to think that's constitutional.

Certainly no reason to think a 2020 court would agree. Constiution is very brief and clear on this issue. Congress have very specifically mandated powers, mostly to set dates for things. Not overly broad powers about setting dates for the end of election law changes. That wasn't in there.

It's only a few paragraphs....WHy you think congress can just willy nilly interject itself legally I don't know. That won't be the opinion of hte highest court in the land.

There is no reason to expect the court will overturn the law. In fact, there is no reason to expect that they would even hear the case. To think that the founder's intent was to allow a state legislature to change the ground rules for a federal election after the election is held is absurd. Since the constitution does not allow congress to pass ex post facto laws and essential every state forbids them there is no reason expect a court would allow it.

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

Ex post facto law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The founding fathers did not believe in democracy, we are a republic

And there are other avenues as well. Like for example Pence could say he finds the electors unacceptable and have new ones appointed.

Fear of mobs lynching them was a pretty common theme among early american elites.

By modern norms it's taboo. But our constitution/electoral system enshrines this sort of intervention very directly.

Pence is not a governor any more, so no, he can't. Wouldn't matter anyway since Indiana voted for Rump.

Way to think it through.

VP is leader of the senate? lol

You name some of the reasons your take is stupid

Sorry you were unaware of the one actual official function a VP has

VP doesn't have jack friggety shit to say about who the Electrical College votes for. He's a spectator.
Prove me wrong, jackwagon.

When he's breaking the tie and letting collins vote against it you'll know how wrong you are

Again, as I wrote above --- "prove me wrong".

Get busy Hunior.

You don't seem to undersatnd the incentives at play here. If they do this, they will purposely allow 3 senators to vote no so their re election chances are better in a state like Maine for collins or a more immediate swing state. Pence will be the one to do this, he'll have to put his face on it they'll make him do it.

Not only can they do it

It would almost 100% be Pence to be the one to break the tie

SENATORS DO NOT VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENT.
REPRESENTATIVES DO NOT VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENT.
VICE PRESIDENTS CERTAINLY DO NOT VOTE FOR THEMSELVES.

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE --- AND ONLY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE --- VOTES FOR THE PRESIDENT.

Good CHRIST you two are fucking DENSE.

 

[Juicin]

E - none of the above.

The several states will certify their results in the next few weeks and name their electors, those electors will vote on December 14, and that will be that. Same as any other election.

Rump of course will fire off petulant twits about how the Electoral College is "a disaster for a democracy" and they're all "losers" and proceed to melt into a corner sucking his thumb, rocking and making moaning noises for the next month. With any luck it will be live-streamed.

What makes you think republican [sic] state legislatures wont choose different electors?

The two party system has no real power under law

They can't. So says existing state laws.

It ain't a question of "the two party system". It's how the states handle the election, by their state's OWN LAW.
You're actually suggesting they're going to convene next week and try to change those laws??

Oh yeah that'll go over bigly.

The supreme court can overturn any law deemed not lawful or that interfered with constitutional rights.

The Constitution (of the US) doesn't even *REQUIRE* an election, Dumbass.

the 12th amendment requires election for president.

Legal Provisions Relevant to the Electoral College Process

The Electoral College website now has an easy-to-remember address. Make sure to update your bookmarks! THE CONSTITUTION Article II Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

www.archives.gov

also citizens are guaranteed right to vote by 15th amendment, 19th amendment,. 24th and 26th.

BULLSHIT.

Article 2, QUOTE:

>> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector. <<​

"Such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" is currently holding an election day and then translating that to the EC. But it could be throwing darts at pictures of candidates, drawing names from a hat, rolling dice, whatever. It could be, and has been, state legs appointing electors but that hasn't been done since before the Civil War.

It has often been claimed that a state legislature can chose electors in any manner it choses. That is true but it's
only true if the manner of selecting electors is set by the state law prior to the election. The state legislature can not change the manner of selection after the vote. Congress’s enactment of a Uniform National Election Day Act that prohibits the choice of electors from being made based on elections held or laws passed after Election Day. In other words, a state legislature that isn't happy with the election results can't appoint it's own slate of electors to override the vote of the people. If a state legislature wants to do this, it must be specified in state law before the election.

No, State Legislatures Cannot Overrule the Popular Vote

Trump supporters' idea of state Legislatures' picking electors to overrule Americans' votes in Pennsylvania or elsewhere is a complete non-starter.

www.justsecurity.org

There is no reason to think that's constitutional.

Certainly no reason to think a 2020 court would agree. Constiution is very brief and clear on this issue. Congress have very specifically mandated powers, mostly to set dates for things. Not overly broad powers about setting dates for the end of election law changes. That wasn't in there.

It's only a few paragraphs....WHy you think congress can just willy nilly interject itself legally I don't know. That won't be the opinion of hte highest court in the land.

There is no reason to expect the court will overturn the law. In fact, there is no reason to expect that they would even hear the case. To think that the founder's intent was to allow a state legislature to change the ground rules for a federal election after the election is held is absurd. Since the constitution does not allow congress to pass ex post facto laws and essential every state forbids them there is no reason expect a court would allow it.

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

Ex post facto law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The founding fathers did not believe in democracy, we are a republic

And there are other avenues as well. Like for example Pence could say he finds the electors unacceptable and have new ones appointed.

Fear of mobs lynching them was a pretty common theme among early american elites.

By modern norms it's taboo. But our constitution/electoral system enshrines this sort of intervention very directly.

Pence is not a governor any more, so no, he can't. Wouldn't matter anyway since Indiana voted for Rump.

Way to think it through.

VP is leader of the senate? lol

You name some of the reasons your take is stupid

Sorry you were unaware of the one actual official function a VP has

VP doesn't have jack friggety shit to say about who the Electrical College votes for. He's a spectator.
Prove me wrong, jackwagon.

When he's breaking the tie and letting collins vote against it you'll know how wrong you are

Again, as I wrote above --- "prove me wrong".

Get busy Hunior.

You don't seem to undersatnd the incentives at play here. If they do this, they will purposely allow 3 senators to vote no so their re election chances are better in a state like Maine for collins or a more immediate swing state. Pence will be the one to do this, he'll have to put his face on it they'll make him do it.

Not only can they do it

It would almost 100% be Pence to be the one to break the tie

SENATORS DO NOT VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENT.
REPRESENTATIVES DO NOT VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENT.
VICE PRESIDENTS CERTAINLY DO NOT VOTE FOR THEMSELVES.

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE --- AND ONLY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE --- VOTES FOR THE PRESIDENT.

Good CHRIST you two are fucking DENSE.

They certify electors

If they do not they can appoint new ones

They appoint who votes in the electoral college

what is wrong with you? same way state electors do.

At the federal level only the senate has a say. All 50 states have their own rules on electors. All of them following the same basic model of legislatures certifying electors

It's really not that complicated idk how you don't know this

 

[esalla]

Hate to burst your bubble, but recounts never change the vote totals by more than a few hundred, at best.

Biden leads by 12,000 in AZ, 50,000 in PA, 150,000 in MI, 15,000 in GA and 40,000 in NV.

Biden could lose a state, but Trump has to pick up all of them to get to 270.

The only way Trump gets to 270 is if he loses 50 pounds.

Dont give up your day job shirley

That's all you've got?

Quiet down or I will drop some pond scum eating guppies in your pond and bye bye you go

If you do that, I'll give your invisible friend such a fucking beating he won't remember his name.

Such happiness

You threatened me first.

Guppies in a pond are a threat to you?

Please explain