Trump's Hail Mary - The Electoral College (1 Viewer)

superchuck500

U.S. Blues
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
2,610
Reaction score
6,234
Location
Charleston, SC
Offline
After Trump lost the election, he pivoted to the "litigation strategy" which has failed by all objective measures. Barring some kind of intervention from the SCOTUS - not likely at this point and based on proceedings in the lower courts - it should truly be over, but Trump seems to have misperceived one last resort to remain in the White House.

Based on comments from Dr. Jenna Ellis, Esq. (no self-aware lawyer calls themselves this), the campaign is now making an "Article II" push to the state legislatures. So far, she and Rudy have presented to a hearing held by PA state Senate Republicans at a Wyndham hotel in Gettysburg, PA, and they are holding their own "public fact-finding hearings" in Arizona and perhaps Michigan, where state legislators are invited to attend.

It seems that the strategy is based on idea that under Article II, Section 1, "each state shall appoint its electors in such a manner that the (state) legislature may direct", state legislatures have a right, even after the election, to send electors that aren't the electors required under their own state election law (i.e. 48 states pledge by statute their electors on the result of the state's popular vote, winner take all -and then in Kansas and Maine by district vote, winner take all).

In other words, the Campaign believes that if it can convince these state legislatures that their elections were hopelessly flawed, they will fix it by acting to send their own slate of electors to vote for Trump - and this will comply with Article II, Section 1 (and the 12th Amendment that clarified the electoral process).

That's simply not how it works. As the Supreme Court has held, including with the June 2020 opinion in Chiafalo v. Washington, the state legislatures manifest their Article II responsibilities through enacting state election laws - at least where they choose to do so, and they all have chosen to do so (because this republic is based on democratic ideals). There is no basis for the idea that state legislatures can enact state election laws, including laws about the pledging of the state's electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in the state . . . and then change that result after the fact.

While it is true the some states have provisions that the legislature (or the Governor) can decide the electoral votes in the event that an election cannot be had or a proper election cannot be declared, this clearly does not bestow an arbitrary or even discretionary right to disregard the result of the popular vote that receives the state's electoral votes. Rather these rules allow for a contingency where a vote truly cannot be had (like literally), or where a result by vote is truly impossible due to some kind of situation. It doesn’t mean “we think this was flawed or fraudulent so we’re not gonna follow it” - the state legislatures don’t have the power to interpret whether their state’s vote should be disregarded unless they have given themselves that right before the election (none of them has).

The legislatures establish state election law. The state conducts the election in accordance with that law and the result of the certified popular vote determines the electors. The legislatures can prospectively change election law for future elections but they cannot re-engineer a state’s election law for elections already conducted. Barring a ruling from a court of competent jurisdiction that the result suffers from some legal defect, it is the result and the state’s electors must vote in accordance with it.

This doesn’t mean they won’t try it. I don’t think they (the state legislatures) actually will but if they did it’s almost certain to fail. The saddest part is that Trump is even endorsing this kind of challenge to our election institutions.
 
Last edited:

JRad

I'm not a cat
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,098
Reaction score
1,608
Age
38
Location
Baton Rouge
Offline
I heard on one of my podcasts this morning Trump said (paraphrasing) “of course I’d leave office...but let see what the EC does. I think you’ll surprised”

From what I have seent, the faithless elector issues were tackled a bit after 2016. While you want to say “ok, this is silly” - you still have to worry that 99% isn’t 100%.

And even on top of that, it’s just so detached from this whole “law and order!” thing that anyone would be perfectly fine with what is essentially a coup seating a president who lost by such a large margin.

I know this is all a cash grift for him, but this is a true insult to our democracy.

Thank you for coming to my Ted talk
 

not2rich

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2019
Messages
499
Reaction score
938
Age
52
Location
Denver, CO
Offline
I heard on one of my podcasts this morning Trump said (paraphrasing) “of course I’d leave office...but let see what the EC does. I think you’ll surprised”

From what I have seent, the faithless elector issues were tackled a bit after 2016. While you want to say “ok, this is silly” - you still have to worry that 99% isn’t 100%.

And even on top of that, it’s just so detached from this whole “law and order!” thing that anyone would be perfectly fine with what is essentially a coup seating a president who lost by such a large margin.

I know this is all a cash grift for him, but this is a true insult to our democracy.

Thank you for coming to my Ted talk
Yes, it's all quite authoritarian and anti-democratic, which is why the most important thing is to sell your supporters on the "massive fraud" conspiracy. Once they believe that, they will justify literally any means to get the ends they want.
 

wardorican

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
3,567
Reaction score
4,028
Age
41
Location
Ft. Lauderdale
Offline
Looks like PA Republicans are going to try it.


Source Thread:

What a turd. This whole thing disgusts me. I rarely tweet at politicians, but I did to him. I seriously hope he's removed from office for malfeasance (unless this is technically allowed). This feels like a gross over step in legislative authority and ethics.

And he tweeted this image. He thinks this is a good picture of him? eek.

1606582808306.png
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #6
OP
superchuck500

superchuck500

U.S. Blues
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
2,610
Reaction score
6,234
Location
Charleston, SC
Offline
What a turd. This whole thing disgusts me. I rarely tweet at politicians, but I did to him. I seriously hope he's removed from office for malfeasance (unless this is technically allowed). This feels like a gross over step in legislative authority and ethics.

And he tweeted this image. He thinks this is a good picture of him? eek.

View attachment 3046

:covri:

 

Saint by the Bay

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2019
Messages
1,107
Reaction score
3,744
Age
48
Location
Houston, TX
Offline

wardorican

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
3,567
Reaction score
4,028
Age
41
Location
Ft. Lauderdale
Offline
:covri:

Did you read through that? lol.

So, they had to take a rapid test before visiting the president. However, they took it, then were in the West wing, then later, some that got positive results were escorted to some sort of medical exam room.

So, he came with Covid. Their testing protocol is just to protect the president, not anyone else. Also, not doing a lot of protection if you let them in the building...

Trump told Mastriano that White House medical personnel would take care of him, his son and his son’s friend, who were also there for the Oval Office meeting and tested positive. The meeting continued after Mastriano and the others left, the person said.
The person spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private session because the matter is politically sensitive.


..................

Everyone who will be in close proximity to the president must take a rapid test. Trump was himself hospitalized in October after he contracted the virus. Dozens of White House staffers and others close to the president have also tested positive, including the first lady and two of the president’s sons.

All participants in Wednesday's meeting took COVID-19 tests, but the positive results were not announced until they were in the West Wing of the White House, the person said.
“The president instantly called the White House doctor in and he took them back to, I guess, the medical place,” the person said. The meeting with Trump was to strategize about efforts regarding the election, the person said.
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
4,818
Reaction score
7,932
Location
Midwest
Online
They (the WH) have never understood testing like, at all. Not what it means, not how to use it, not it’s importance in slowing the spread. And the evidence of that is very clear, both in the ranks of people there who have had the virus and in the entire country.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #10
OP
superchuck500

superchuck500

U.S. Blues
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
2,610
Reaction score
6,234
Location
Charleston, SC
Offline
Sounds like the PA House won't be meeting again this year. That means they won't be able to attempt to change the state's electoral votes.

 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
3,076
Reaction score
2,245
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline
We don't have to get rid of the electoral college to fix it, but we can't fix it with the attitude that we can't fix it and just have to live with it.

Defeatism always gets defeated.

I'm just saying there's no political will to completely eliminate the EC...really by either side. But yeah, tweaking the system is definitely doable. More states doing split delegates and ranked choice voting are certainly viable in the near term. I do hope those come to pass.

Heck, I'd love to be able to vote from my computer at home. Idk if that's doable or how you establish a paper trail and validate votes, but I imagine experts can figure that out.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #17
OP
superchuck500

superchuck500

U.S. Blues
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
2,610
Reaction score
6,234
Location
Charleston, SC
Offline
I'm just saying there's no political will to completely eliminate the EC...really by either side. But yeah, tweaking the system is definitely doable. More states doing split delegates and ranked choice voting are certainly viable in the near term. I do hope those come to pass.

Heck, I'd love to be able to vote from my computer at home. Idk if that's doable or how you establish a paper trail and validate votes, but I imagine experts can figure that out.

And by "political will" you mean a proposed constitutional amendment that passes both houses of Congress by 2/3 and then gets ratified by 3/4 of the states.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Top Bottom