Posted on 12/16/2020 11:49:11 AM PST by grundle
In the 1960 Presidential election, after the Republicans from Hawaii sent in their electors for their candidate, Nixon, Democrats from Hawaii sent in their own, second set of electors for their candidate, JFK. When the electoral votes were officially counted by Vice President Nixon on January 6, 1961, it was that second set from Hawaii that got the official count. With this, a new precedent was set, and it was set by Democrats.
Now, in the 2020 Presidential election, Republicans from 7 states (Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico) have copied that precedent by sending in a second set of electors. On January 6, when Vice President Pence counts the electoral votes, he will have to choose whether to count the first or second set of electors from each state.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
As long as the legislatures of those states declare the R electors legitimate. That appears to be the only procedural step that needs to be taken for constitutionality. I was not aware NM had outstanding election issues.
The fact that 7 states accepted and sent votes for two sets of electors should stand for something:
Pennsylvania 20 votes
Georgia 16 votes
Michigan 16 votes
Wisconsin 10 votes
Arizona 11 votes
Nevada 6 votes
New Mexico 5 votes
According to new common core math that would be 84 votes. Guess that don’t mean anything these days.
Say Goodbye to free Elections.
As of yesterday, Mitch McConnell objects to the second set of Electors.
no way.
McConnell can sit on it. He doesn’t get a say in this process.
The president of the Senate presides. And who is the president of the Senate? That’s right. Mike Pence
This would only be significant if Nixon won the votes of Hawaii?
Bttt
Does it matter what Mitch McConnell objects to?
It looks like Nixon personally ordered the Democratic electors account?
OK. Thanks for letting me know.
For further reading.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Count_Act
It looks like it gets back to which are certified by the Governor of that state. Hence the fight to decertify. If decertified, would free up Congress to pick which ones to accept. I believe Pence would break the tie of each chamber votes for the expected party (House:D; Senate: R).
Probably true, but at least we would have a 4 year breather to try to institute systems to try to provide them.
The question is whether you want this one to seat fraudulent President or if you want to wait 4 years with the rightful guy in office to see if we can solve the wide-open fraud issues.
“This would only be significant if Nixon won the votes of Hawaii?”
So I looked up the 1960 Presidential election and found a conflict. Wikipedia says Nixon won Hawaii but the National Archives says that Kennedy won Hawaii. I’m going with the archives. Did Wikipedia make an honest mistake, or are they changing history for the purpose of affecting today’s conversation?
In any case, the votes from Hawaii did not make a significant difference in the outcome. Contrast this with the case now, or in 1876.
Big difference: Ds had 64 seats in the Senate and held the House.
Both must agree on any changes to electors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.