Replies

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.