James Clyburn defends federal takeover of elections: 'Cannot be left up to the states'

[martybegan]

WTF are you talking about?

This law would allow the state in question to "certify" the opposite slate of electors from the ones the people voted for

Any State that has a certification can do that, or reject the slate of electors proposed by the voting totals. it's the point of certifying.

WTF are you talking about?

Again, link the part of the law you are bitching about, unless like most progressives you were just told to bitch about it without actually having read the law section in question.

 

[busybee01]

James Clyburn defends federal takeover of elections: 'Cannot be left up to the states'

Listening to him ignorantly rattle-on is about like taking crazy pills.

Blah, I don't know why I'm surprised though, any challenge of a centralized power structure is a threat to those people.

Oh well, he's 81, the time left for him to be honoring himself is nearing it's end.

The Constitution allows this to happen. The founding fathers knew that state legislatures could be corrupted and added this provision to stop the corruption that is occuring in red states today. I also suspect if Repuiblicans get control they will launch a federal effort to attack voting rights.

 

[BluesLegend]

Democrats need voter fraud, period. They're not interested in free and fair elections. That's why they're so desperate to pass their voter fraud act.

Dems are NOT pushing for free and fair and unbiased press coverage of elections. They seem perfectly fine with the Dem biased coverage ignoring issues with their candidates and attacking the Republican candidates with lies and half truths. I point and laugh at asshole Dem's faux rage over free and fair elections.

 

[Lesh]

Any State that has a certification can do that, or reject the slate of electors proposed by the voting totals. it's the point of certifying.

WTF are you talking about?

Again, link the part of the law you are bitching about, unless like most progressives you were just told to bitch about it without actually having read the law section in question.

Arizona

Proposed law would allow Arizona Legislature to overturn presidential election results

Republican's proposal would allow Arizona Legislature to overturn presidential election results even after they are formally certified by the governor and secretary of state and the electors are counted by

tucson.com

 

[busybee01]

Clyburn is an angry racist Democrat.
He believes that protecting everyone's Right to Vote from the Corrupt Democratic Party's election rigging crimes is "voter suppression".
The Democrats are liars and cheaters.
They are not trying to protect voting rights.
They are trying to make their election rigging crimes easier.
They are a true threat to everyone's right to vote and to our democracy*.

Republicans like you are the racists. Republicans are the ones attacking the right to vote to rig the vote. Republicans are theliars and cheaters attacking voter rights to establish a Republican dictatorship in which they cannot be voted out of office.

 

[BluesLegend]

So the stupid shits in DC who have spent us $30 trillion into debt, who fuck up pretty much everything they touch think they should be in charge of elections...

 

[martybegan]

Arizona

Proposed law would allow Arizona Legislature to overturn presidential election results

Republican's proposal would allow Arizona Legislature to overturn presidential election results even after they are formally certified by the governor and secretary of state and the electors are counted by

tucson.com

Proposed law, in Arizona. And if the Legislature has to certify the election anyway, how does this change anything? Also We are talking about Georgia, aren't we? What part of the new Voter laws in Georgia do what you said is happening?

 

[busybee01]

These laws make mail voting and early voting more difficult, impose harsher voter ID requirements, and make faulty voter purges more likely.

Discounting the "faulty" part (dem speak for the dead/moved vote) they all sound like winners to me.

Of course people like you who want to practice voter szuppression support it.

 

[Lesh]

Numerous other states

Are state legislators seeking power to overrule voters?

In a speech on voting rights in Philadelphia, President Joe Biden vowed that his administration would fight back against

www.politifact.com

 

[Lesh]

Proposed law, in Arizona. And if the Legislature has to certify the election anyway, how does this change anything? Also We are talking about Georgia, aren't we? What part of the new Voter laws in Georgia do what you said is happening?

First fucking paragraph of your linked post moron

PHOENIX — A Republican lawmaker wants to allow the Arizona Legislature to overturn the results of a presidential election, even after the count is formally certified by the governor and secretary of state — and even after Congress counts the state’s electors.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Arizona

Proposed law would allow Arizona Legislature to overturn presidential election results

Republican's proposal would allow Arizona Legislature to overturn presidential election results even after they are formally certified by the governor and secretary of state and the electors are counted by

tucson.com

There;s no text for the bill available here, so let's take this at it word:

But the most sweeping provision would say that, regardless of any other law, the Legislature retains ultimate authority in deciding who the state’s presidential electors are.
And it would spell out that lawmakers, by a simple majority, could revoke the formal certification of the election results and substitute their own decision at any time right up to the day a new president is inaugurated.

This, ultimately and conceptually, means the AZ legislature chooses the electors from their state.
What's the problem?

 

[martybegan]

First fucking paragraph of your linked post moron

PHOENIX — A Republican lawmaker wants to allow the Arizona Legislature to overturn the results of a presidential election, even after the count is formally certified by the governor and secretary of state — and even after Congress counts the state’s electors.

One guy. Has it passed? You want me to start referencing Progressive law proposals by one person?

What about the disease camps guy in NY?

We were talking about Georgia, what part of the law passed that has progressives having kittens were you complaining about?

 

[busybee01]

Dems are NOT pushing for free and fair and unbiased press coverage of elections. They seem perfectly fine with the Dem biased coverage ignoring issues with their candidates and attacking the Republican candidates with lies and half truths. I point and laugh at asshole Dem's faux rage over free and fair elections.

Again you tell us what Republicans are trying to do. The right wing media is the one who is distributing propaganda. Trump supporters are the ones lying about Democrats. Biden nailed Republicans with the truth and Democrats need to start telling the truth about fascist Republicans.

 

[TNHarley]

Hey for once you did your homework.

That is a "thing"...which I neither agree with nor will pass SCOTUS muster without some serious legislative change

15 states ain't gonna get it done.

Have you ever read the Constitution?

 

[Lesh]

There;s no text for the bill available here, so let's take this at it word:

But the most sweeping provision would say that, regardless of any other law, the Legislature retains ultimate authority in deciding who the state’s presidential electors are.
And it would spell out that lawmakers, by a simple majority, could revoke the formal certification of the election results and substitute their own decision at any time right up to the day a new president is inaugurated.

This, ultimately and conceptually, means the AZ legislature chooses the electors from their state.
What's the problem?

What's the problem?

Republican legislatures are passing laws that would allow them to ignore the voters and send whatever electors they want.

Of course you approve

 

[busybee01]

There;s no text for the bill available here, so let's take this at it word:

But the most sweeping provision would say that, regardless of any other law, the Legislature retains ultimate authority in deciding who the state’s presidential electors are.
And it would spell out that lawmakers, by a simple majority, could revoke the formal certification of the election results and substitute their own decision at any time right up to the day a new president is inaugurated.

This, ultimately and conceptually, means the AZ legislature chooses the electors from their state.
What's the problem?

The state leghislature allows voters to make the decision which is the right thing to do.

 

[bendog]

If the state legislature doesn't LIKE the results of the election...they cn simply ignore it and send a slate of electors that THEY want.

So yea...it does

Yeah. I can understand the GA legislature's skepticism of Fulton County, but that part of the remedy is really about Trump and Raffsburger and even Kemp

 

[M14 Shooter]

What's the problem?
Republican legislatures are passing laws that would allow them to ignore the voters and send whatever electors they want.

This law has not passed, so your statement is a lie.

The states are not required to put their electors up for a vote; in their plenary power to chose the manner of determining their electors, state legislatures can do pretty much whatever they want.
This includes the creation of election law that includes the ability of a legislature to overturn the results of an election.

So, again, what's the problem?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hey for once you did your homework.
That is a "thing"...which I neither agree with nor will pass SCOTUS muster without some serious legislative change
15 states ain't gonna get it done.

And wil fall apart the first time CA and NY and IL have to give their electors to a Republican.

 

[Lesh]

This law has not passed, so your statement is a lie.

The states are not required to put their electors up for a vote; in their plenary power to chose the manner of determining their electors, state legislatures can do pretty much whatever they want.
This includes the creation of election law that includes the ability of a legislature to overturn the results of an election.

So, again, what's the problem?

Not necessarily.

Jesus, that would be about as in democratic as you can get