@no1marauder saidYou're deliberately missing the point: electors have departed from the popular votes in the past, including Trump's election. You again mentioned the SCOTUS decision; that merely upholds a state's right to enact laws ensuring electors follow the popular vote. And I've already pointed out to you that only 29 states have this law; a key state like Georgia isn't one of them.
No, "it" a State legislature overriding a popular vote determination has never happened.
The ability of "faithless electors" to cast votes at variance with the popular vote has been severely limited by the SCOTUS decision this year already mentioned.
Furthermore:
https://theconversation.com/could-a-few-state-legislatures-choose-the-next-president-146950
Recent media reports indicate that Trump’s campaign is considering asking some of the 29 state legislatures with Republican majorities, in charge of a total of 300 electoral votes, to depart from current practice in choosing their Electoral College delegates. The request would be for those bodies to select Trump electors and order them to cast their ballots for the president, regardless of the candidate the states’ voters actually preferred. A similar possibility arose in 2000, when the Republican majority in the state’s legislature claimed to possess “broad authority to allocate Florida’s electoral votes,” and came close to doing so.
You're trying with all your might to make this seem like some sort of conspiracy theory; I'm merely repeating what Republicans have been openly scheming. History also shows this has been attempted before, and that electors have voted against their state, MULTIPLE times; so you crying it's "not realistic" is just you being willingly blind.
19 Oct 20
@vivify saidNo, it's being realistic.
You're deliberately missing the point: electors have departed from the popular votes in the past, including Trump's election. You again mentioned the SCOTUS decision; that merely upholds a state's right to enact laws ensuring electors follow the popular vote. And I've already pointed out to you that only 29 states have this law; a key state like Georgia isn't one of them.
...[text shortened]... t their state, MULTIPLE times; so you crying it's "not realistic" is just you being willingly blind.
You are misreading the actual precedents and melding two different things into one. One would be for the State legislature to affirmatively vote in a slate of electors replacing the one the People of the State selected. This has never happened and if you bothered to look at the link I provided you it isn't legal under present Federal and State law.
The other is the issue of "faithless electors" which is an elector selected from a slate pledged to a candidate voting for someone else. This has happened (though it never came anywhere near effecting the result of an election) but even that remote possibility has been severely reduced by the SCOTUS decision. Electors in States with laws binding them to vote for the candidate who's slate they are on now must. And you've given no credible reason to believe it is likely that Biden electors would vote for Trump.
In short, you are being absurd (like worrying about NY and IL state legislatures sending a pro-Trump slate of electors) and I'm being realistic. I'd rate the chances of any of your scenarios (other than Trump actually winning the election) as about a million to one.
19 Oct 20
@no1marauder saidThe legislature, no, But the Electoral college, yes. Which is why I don't like the
No, "it" a State legislature overriding a popular vote determination has never happened.
The ability of "faithless electors" to cast votes at variance with the popular vote has been severely limited by the SCOTUS decision this year already mentioned.
electoral college.
19 Oct 20
4 edits
@no1marauder saidYou keep saying "severely limited". I'll again remind you that this is in only 29 states, states that don't include key states like Georgia.
The other is the issue of "faithless electors" which is an elector selected from a slate pledged to a candidate voting for someone else. This has happened (though it never came anywhere near effecting the result of an election) but even that remote possibility has been severely reduced by the SCOTUS decision.
Whether you believe this is "realistic" or not, the fact remains that Republicans, like I've repeatedly shown you, are actively Trying to get certain states to pledge their votes to Trump. Electors have voted against their states in the past, including in Trump's election. These are facts, not theories.
Given how the GOP has acted in recent years, repeatedly committing acts that only a few years ago would've seemed "unlikely", has become the norm. Consider acts like blocking a president's SCOTUS pick for nearly a year, Republican legislators literally running away to block Dem votes on climate change, Republicans acquitting a president after admitting his actions rise to the level of impeachment, etc., etc. All of these were "unlikely" scenarios, like a man talking about his penis during presidential debate and winning the election.
It's amazing that you still believe there are any acts of corruption too that are byond Republicans at this point. You saw what happened in Florida with G.W. Bush (a state where brother was governor), yet still think it's "unlikely".
There's nothing left to say here.
19 Oct 20
@vivify saidYou don't seem to understand that "faithless electors" in your scenario would have to be Biden electors somehow convinced to vote for Trump.
You keep saying "severely limited". I'll again remind you that this is in only 29 states, states that don't include key states like Georgia.
Whether you believe this is "realistic" or not, the fact remains that Republicans, like I've repeatedly shown you, are actively Trying to get certain states to pledge their votes to Trump. Electors have voted against their states i ...[text shortened]... d in Florida with G.W. Bush, yet still think it's "unlikely".
There's nothing left to say here.
And again, there is difference between Thing 1 and Thing 2 you are talking about. In fact:
"In the 20th century, many States enacted statutes meant
to guarantee that outcome—that is, to prohibit so-called
faithless voting. Rather than just assume that party-picked
electors would vote for their party’s winning nominee, those
States insist that they do so. As of now, 32 States and the
District of Columbia have such statutes on their books"
Chiafalo v. Washington p. 5 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf
That some weird, but not illegal things have happened is no reason to believe that outlandish things are likely to happen in the future.
22 Oct 20
@no1marauder saidNo, I'm not talking about that. Read the very first post of mine on this thread. I provided 2 links that prove election fraud. I'll add this too.
You didn't prove anything even if your story is true:
"It is common for multiple ballot request applications to be sent out ahead of the election and by more than just the local election office."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/11/fact-check-you-vote-once-even-if-you-receive-multiple-ballot-applications/5750080002/
https://censoredbyjack.com/watch?id=5f905c0ac9aefd1615a0f216
22 Oct 20
@ponderable saidWrong post.
you did what? "prove" anything? You claimed to have received four balots but there is Nothing we can do to test that. You failed to alarm the authorities (which you should have done if you wanted to actively secure a safe Ballot), so what exactly do you want?
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/no-voter-fraud-isnt-myth-10-cases-where-its-all-to/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/michigan-democrat-hit-with-six-felony-charges-for-alleged-voter-fraud-scheme
We all know the republicans are going to lose the popular vote.
We all know the senate is rubbish. With tiny states having the same amount of say as gigantic states.
We all know that gerrymandering to the extreme has helped the republican party.
We all know the GOP have been pushing projects which make it more difficult for minorities to vote.
We all know that the GOP have been pushing this rubbish about the rigged election.
So, either trump wins (which he won’t) or they’re going to contest the vote to the max. And nobody can speculate what the outcome of that will be.
However, whoever wins... there is going to be blood on the streets.
The US is too polarized to calm down. It’s a powder keg of frustration and hate. And it is going to go off.
22 Oct 20
@shavixmir saidHere is election fraud caught on camera.
We all know the republicans are going to lose the popular vote.
We all know the senate is rubbish. With tiny states having the same amount of say as gigantic states.
We all know that gerrymandering to the extreme has helped the republican party.
We all know the GOP have been pushing projects which make it more difficult for minorities to vote.
We all know that t ...[text shortened]... is too polarized to calm down. It’s a powder keg of frustration and hate. And it is going to go off.
https://censoredbyjack.com/watch?id=5f905c0ac9aefd1615a0f216
22 Oct 20
@metal-brain saidNo one ever claimed that there has never been a case of voter fraud in the United States, so your links prove very little. In reality, cases of voter fraud are rare:
No, I'm not talking about that. Read the very first post of mine on this thread. I provided 2 links that prove election fraud. I'll add this too.
https://censoredbyjack.com/watch?id=5f905c0ac9aefd1615a0f216
"HOW RARE IS VOTER FRAUD?
Many researchers have focused on impersonation fraud, in which a voter pretends to be someone else at the polls, because such claims have been used by states to justify stricter voter ID laws.
Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola Law School who tracks such cases, identified only 31 impersonation incidents between 2000 and 2014 across the country, out of more than 1 billion ballots cast.
Five states - Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah and Washington - hold their elections primarily by mail and have documented almost no cases of cheating. Oregon, for instance, has sent out more than 100 million mail ballots since 2000 and reported around a dozen cases of proven fraud."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-voter-fraud-facts-explai/explainer-despite-trump-claims-voter-fraud-is-extremely-rare-here-is-how-u-s-states-keep-it-that-way-idUSKBN2601HG
@no1marauder saidIt is rare because there has not been much mail in early voting until now. Trump didn't say there was a lot of voter fraud. He basically said more mail voting had the potential to lead to a lot of election fraud. You cannot prove that wrong until after the election. Nobody can.
No one ever claimed that there has never been a case of voter fraud in the United States, so your links prove very little. In reality, cases of voter fraud are rare:
"HOW RARE IS VOTER FRAUD?
Many researchers have focused on impersonation fraud, in which a voter pretends to be someone else at the polls, because such claims have been used by states to justify stricte ...[text shortened]... ite-trump-claims-voter-fraud-is-extremely-rare-here-is-how-u-s-states-keep-it-that-way-idUSKBN2601HG
https://nypost.com/2020/08/05/84000-mail-in-ballots-disqualified-in-nyc-primary-election/
22 Oct 20
@metal-brain saidDid you read the last paragraph in my post?
It is rare because there has not been much mail in early voting until now. Trump didn't say there was a lot of voter fraud. He basically said more mail voting had the potential to lead to a lot of election fraud. You cannot prove that wrong until after the election. Nobody can.
https://nypost.com/2020/08/05/84000-mail-in-ballots-disqualified-in-nyc-primary-election/
Trump is looking for excuses, nothing more.
23 Oct 20
@no1marauder saidExcuses for what?
Did you read the last paragraph in my post?
Trump is looking for excuses, nothing more.
