Glad you calmed your tone. So back to the point: how did the lawsuits regarding the very clearly written Palm Beach ballots go?
It won. It sent all the way to the USSC, meaning, for the fourth time, just like disclaimers-—CLEARLY WRITTEN DISCLAIMERS-—do not protect you from judgments, neither do clearly written statements about voting for electors rather than people mean anything. It is a court that decides and in America anyone can find courts to rule for them.
It then ends up in the USSC which, unless you can find another justice between now and December, would be 4-4 and case remanded to lower court-—which would be the same court that allowed the person to get to the USSC in the first p,ace (I.e., the one that said that langauge doesn’t matter).
Or, for some reason the USSC could cite Bush v. Gore and say you cannot have multiple elections/vote counts-—regardless of the language on the ballot.
There is no scenario in which a court would just allow electors to be “assigned” because a party ways it so OR because “that’s what the language say”. In our legal world, the specific language of documents means nothing (remember Roberts’ Obamacare decision?)
Just because you can find cases in which a court, or even a series of courts, rules wrongly, does not mean that every court will always ignore plain language. Arizona does not require the electors for whom a voter votes to then vote for the candidate who is preferred by the voter. Such a voter might be thoroughly ticked off, but it would require a court to disregard the incontrovertible fact that the voter did vote for the electors, and not the candidate, for the voter’s suit to have any chance of winning.
Perhaps such a thing might happen, and perhaps it did in this Palm Beach whatever you keep going on about. Or perhaps, as I suspect, Palm Beach addressed something other than my point that Arizona voters do not vote directly for Presidential candidates and that that is clearly stated on the ballot. (I freely admit that I do not come home from a typical 12+ hour workday and research political lawsuits.)
I do not know why you are bringing up Bush v. Gore, nor mentioning some mythical scenario in which a party assigns electors, other than your obvious penchant for irrelevance. Those things have nothing to do with what I pointed out in the first place.
Anyway, I’ve spent far too much time trying to make a really simple point. I apologize for the earlier profanity, but I find it really annoying when people drag in a lot of off-topic nonsense and think they’re making an argument.
Enjoy the election in November, and let me know how it works out if you decide to sue because you aren’t happy with the result of your vote.