Posted on 09/08/2020 4:38:27 PM PDT by LS
“No you contradicted yourself. If a majority of those APPOINTED & D states don’t appoint, Trump wins.”
*******************************************************
In a close election, I worry more about the possibility that states where Trump carries the (possibly disputed) popular vote but which have DemocRAT governors and Secretaries of State (e.g., Pennsylvania) have their electors INTENTIONALLY not “officially” appointed.
The ‘RATS are in “by any means necessary” mode and are certainly having all variants of mischief planned.
I’m saying the threat is worthwhile.
You in essence (in this case) are saying apparent form completely erases function and results. If the State in question can’t function as a Republican form of government, some may maintain that results overrule intentions.
I think that the leftists are always on attack and we must be as well.
Yep, just checked and WA is all mail in votes.
I didn't dispute whether anything was a deadline. I don't know what you mean here.
"And it doesn’t matter if you say “This isn’t a precedent” when it very clearly is. ALL Scotus rulings are."
Not if the Supreme Court says otherwise.
"The recount process, in its features here described, is inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental right of each voter in the special instance of a statewide recount under the authority of a single state judicial officer. Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities." - Bush v. Gore
I don’t get it really, is it more “dangerous” that the grocery store? LOL.
News out today from Fox about absentee ballot applications in swing states. Rat lead in most, including Florida where GOP pioneered the practice. But GOP still leads in Michigan, were they have also enjoyed an advantage in absentees historically (note than despite the narrow Trump win it did not shrink away as they counted mail ballots).
So that would seem to indicate a Trump lead in MI on election night would hold up.
The Right to Vote in the USA has been an ever changing Right.
Women didn’t get the Right to vote until 1920. 1965 the Voting
Rights Act ensured the Right to vote for Black people. That has
only been 65 years ago.
I’m trusting your judgement on this one...
Under this scenario we lose the House and possibly the Senate because those races are also on the fraudulent ballots. And sadly, House candidates even Senate candidates don't have Soros's cash to defend the seat.
I’ll give an example:
Trump carries Michigan. And, crucially, with this state, wins the election. But Michigan dallies, never certifies the vote and doesn’t appoint Electors. Therefore, Biden wins because he has a majority of the EVs who are appointed.
What is crucial is that Michigan is a (currently) Democrat-CONTROLLED state won by Trump.
You are possibly correct Kenny.
BUT ... This would not be because of failing to certify the election by the deadline for Electors (Dec. 14), but because of failing to certify the election by the time the new Congress gathers (by January 3).
On the other hand, Democrats could steal elections through the old fashions methods of stuffing the ballot box.
correct wiseprince
In 2000, the Republican Secretary of State certified the election. So, the plan of the Democrats was to end-run her, and appeal to the state Supreme Court (which they controlled) and recount in selected counties (which they controlled). Either they find enough votes to steal the election in those counties or simply delay long enough to prevent Electors from being appointed.
The state legislature of Florida could have intervened and appointed the Bush Electors. But, no, the state Supreme Court wouldn’t allow that. So, the case was appealed to the federal courts, quickly moved up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court put an end to the madness.
In 2016, they kind of attempted to thwart the election via recounts in selected states. They got the Green Party candidate to request these recounts (and got away with that, even though she had no standing). But, we controlled the election apparatus in each of the three states. And, we got the recount done pronto. These were machine recounts. Not millions of paper ballots. Thus, part of the delay strategy is to bring back paper ballots via mail ballots.
-PJ
“America is at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.” ...Larry, since we know that this is the Communist insurrection Khrushchev shouted about at the UN podium when he said "We will bury you!" Well guess what? Nobody in the Soviet Politburo told them to cancel the attack on the United States just because the Soviet Union fell.
The Soviet defector, Yuri Bezmenov, warned us about it in 1984.
Then further substantiated by this Paul Weyrich Quote:
"I asked [Yegor] Gaidar why it was that he thought free-market efforts in the Soviet Union were being trashed by American media when the reality was far different from what I was seeing. He replied with a stinging answer, one I never will forget. He said, 'Well, the Soviets spent millions of dollars infiltrating your media. Just because the Soviet Union went away doesn't mean these people have gone away. They are still there.' Of course, I knew this."Could this be time to go look up Clare Wolfe and see if she imagined what circumstances would take us to the next stage?[Yegor Gaidar was the acting Prime Minister of Russia appointed by President Boris Yeltsin from 15 June 1992 to 14 December 1992, but was not confirmed by the anti-Yeltsin Russian Congress of People's Deputies.]
What if in 2016, Trump lost Pennsylvania (20 EV) and Wisconsin (10 EV)? That would have made the Electoral College 276-262, and Trump would still have won.
Now suppose that Michigan (16 EV), which Trump won 47.6% to 47.4%, politically chose to delay certifying the vote and not send their Electors to the Electoral College. This would have made the Electoral Vote 262-260 Clinton in an Electoral College with only 522 appointed Electors. The threshold to win would have been a majority of APPOINTED Electors, or 262.
Clinton would have won in 2016 in this scenario, because Michigan chose to withhold their 16 Trump Electors from participating in the Electoral College.
That's the scorched earth scenario the Democrats are probably gaming.
-PJ
Two sets of electors 1876-HayesTilden
... The USSC ruled that it was a violation of the “one man, one vote” to only partially count and SINCE they couldn't count the whole state, Gore's partial recount was invalid.
...
What is NOT clear is, what if a state simply refuses to certify its count/electors and doesn't submit at all?
And yet, the very existence of the (Democrat Party's so-far-politically-successful) “Combined Popular Vote” initiatives at their OWN STATE and Local levels! - means that the state democrat parties (and the local governments and populations that control those low-level state entities) DO NOT CARE if they (as a “state” are not represented in national voting. These local politicians ONLY CARE about getting the single (democrat party) national victory “and the Supreme Court for which it stands.”
Sobering.
One Man, One vote.
5-4 SCOTUS. And only one man’s vote matters.
When the USSC stepped in ......due to brilliant legal moves by Bush's lawyer, former Secy of State James Baker..... they ordered the count be stopped.
This seemed to be an acknowledgement of the Democrats' proclivity to count, recount, then recount until they had all the votes need to win.
In his book about losing the election, Gore related that everytime his lawyers moved in, Bush's lawyer were one step ahead of them.
Cynical. They will certainly care if they set precedent that is constantly used against them to exclude electoral votes.
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.