Really, based off of today's numbers, the percent difference is 6.8%
So, if you assume fewer black voters, and a 5% switch, it is highly plausible.
Joe Biden is now POTUS
- Thread starter Spectrum
- Start date
So, if you assume fewer black voters, and a 5% switch, it is highly plausible.
That wasn't my point, my point was the number being 5% or whatever due to voters fraud.
Exactly and it's absolutely critical that Biden/Harris have the Senate as well.
Because it's clear Trump and Co. has set a precedence that other wanna be clowns will try.
The first step is to make sure those type of people aren't even eligible to run.
No candidate should be able to hide there taxes and other documents that strongly suggest they could be compromised.
You can't even get a job dealing with money(etc banking) without credit checks etc. But you can be POTUS? fuck outta here.
Trump will not get the chance to run for president again he is committing federal crimes right now and then he also is in trouble with the state of New York his taxes the rape case....yeah trump running again is not happening
The powers that be is going to make sure we don’t have another Trump.....Also this country is getting more and more diversified with its population. You will see more Obamas pop up in the next few years hopefully
Yes there will. It was always about the racism. You really think rural voters would be energized by a draft dodging billionaire from NYC if he wasn't spouting the racism that they love to hear?
That's the states. Congress counts them in Jan.
Date for Counting Electoral Votes The date for counting the electoral votes is fixed by law as January 6 following each presidential election (3 U.S.C. §15), unless the date is changed by law. For example, when January 6, 2013, was to fall on a Sunday, the date was changed to January 4, 2013, when the President signed H.J.Res. 122 on December 28, 2012.
Laws about Electors
Yeah. It's a symbolic act that really doesn't matter until it does, I guess. I guess that's like the certification process. It should be a final play, but there are ways, in some states, to have the electors pledge differently than their state.
I'll tell you this, if muthafuckas didn't understand the constitution and our laws vs norms, we all have a better understanding of them now as we have to deal with Trump breaking them or the threat of breaking them.
Yes once Pence receives the certifications by the states Congress just do a recount but electors vote on dec 14. There can be objections but it is pretty much a done by then.
I’m only looking through the prism of reality...IRS, State charges and FED charges. Trump is going to have mofos fighting for the remains of his carcass
Not really. It is THE certification of the electoral votes and that makes it official under the constitution.
Not sure what you mean by some states are able to have electors pledge differently. Actually, there are penalties for faithless electors in several states.
Man I will slap the shit outta you
I never mentioned COVID one time and you've been sucking your own dick over that dumb shit for how many pages
I'm talking about state certification of the vote. That should make it official. However, the process can still be subverted. That's why you're now talking about how the electors vote. The way the electors vote shouldn't even be a concern but here we are because the GOP is openly talking about electors voting against the state certification and pledging to Trump. That's why I'm saying all of these things are "official" until they aren't. That's how authoritarianism works... the erosion of norms and law. It's unconstitutional for Trump to have run his campaign from the West Wing, but didn't matter. How authoritarianism works is by eroding the law. The constitution literally is just a piece of paper unless it can be enforced. That's why I said these things matter "until they don't". Trump is trying to see how far up the "until they don't" scale he can get.
There are sanctions. Those penalties don't mean they can't indeed vote against the popular vote. The problem is that you need a close election for it to matter. Trump can't flip enough of those to erase what will be a nearly 100 point EC lead. He had won GA and PA, we'd be in a real constitutional crisis.
There have been faithless electors in recent elections..even in 2016. It just changed the tally but not the outcome. That's why the margins mattered with Trump.
Last edited:
Why you talking to yourself?
Alaska is done
yo @fonzerrillii
The GOP just overperformed everywhere. Apparently, the Democrats rigged the election but forgot about actually rigging the election.
yo @fonzerrillii
The GOP just overperformed everywhere. Apparently, the Democrats rigged the election but forgot about actually rigging the election.
I'm unclear about what you're talking about. The electors are pledged to vote as the people vote. Once it's called, that's their vote.
On July 6, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled, “A State may enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee—and the state voters’ choice—for President. … Electors are not free agents; they are to vote for the candidate whom the State’s voters have chosen.”
In Washington State in 2016, three so-called “faithless” electors voted for Colin Powell instead of Hillary Clinton, violating a pledge under state law to vote for the candidate who won the most votes in their state. The state fined them for their defiance, and in May 2019, the Washington Supreme Court upheld the fines, ruling that the Constitution gives the state power to impose a financial penalty on electors who violate their pledge.
Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia have laws that “bind” electors to vote according to their pledge. Nineteen of those states and the District of Columbia have no legal consequences for electors who defy the will of the voters. In 11 states, a non-compliant vote is nullified, the office is presumed vacant, and a new elector is chosen. (Colorado is not among this group but interpreted its law in this way.) And in four others, including two that also replace faithless electors, violating the pledge is punishable by prosecution or a fine.
Read this. You're literally trying to argue that something can't happen THAT JUST HAPPENED IN 2016.
Can the Electoral College be subverted by “faithless electors"? | Brookings
The Electoral College is made up of real people, who on rare occasions have defied their party.
www.brookings.edu
Every four years, Americans rediscover the 538-member Electoral College, the convoluted mechanism that the Constitution (Article II, section 1 and Amendment XII ), federal statutes, and state laws prescribe for selecting the president. Electors rarely appear on ballots, but when voters pull the lever for president and vice president, they are actually voting to authorize competing slates of electors who will cast the official votes at a later date. The founders envisioned electors as free agents, selected by the voters to be what Alexander Hamilton described in Federalist 68 as “men most capable of analyzing” presidential candidates. Over the years most have forgotten that electors are actual people, and the Founders’ vision has morphed almost uniformly into 538 party-selected, faceless robots.
Russell Wheeler
Visiting Fellow - Governance Studies
Following the November popular vote, each state formally designates its electors, specifically those electors selected by the political party of—and pledged to vote for—the state’s popular vote-winning candidate. In December those electors meet in each state to cast their official electoral votes, which the states send to Washington for January’s official tally. The winning side in all but Maine and Nebraska gets all the state’s electoral votes regardless of the popular vote division. The House of Representatives decides presidential elections if there is no Electoral College majority (most recently in 1824), although the 1876 election was resolved by horse trading after a special commission ended voting disputes.
Today’s electors pledge to vote faithfully for their party’s candidate. American history has seen a handful of faithless electors—156 by one count—who vote for someone other than that candidate. Faithless electors have never changed an election outcome. But in this chaotic election year, their potential to disrupt the presidential election may loom larger. As a further twist, state legislatures in battleground states might try to replace state-certified electors with alternative slates of faithless-elector equivalents.
Reasonable people debate the Electoral College’s winner-take-all assignment of electors and slight small-state favoritism (every state gets two electoral votes, regardless of size, plus its number of House members). But only some tricorn hat society would defend using human-being electors. Absent the constitutional mandate, states could simply certify the popular vote and transmit the electoral vote to Washington.
The Constitution, though, requires electors to be people. To constrain their behavior, the District of Columbia and over 30 states have laws requiring electors to vote faithfully for their party’s winning candidate. Around 20 states also have laws to replace faithless electors or penalize them for violating their pledge. The Supreme Court upheld a faithful elector requirement in 1952. In 2020 it upheld two state laws imposing sanctions on faithless electors—in both cases because the Constitution authorizes states to appoint electors “in such a manner as the legislature . . . may direct.”
These decisions, though, hardly ensure smooth faithless-elector sailing in 2020. What could go wrong? Plenty if there is no clear-cut winner. The presence of a highly polarized electorate and an unconventional president have given rise to many scenarios that take the election past November and into the House of Representatives. Disputes in the states will get arcane fast, owing to state law variations, most states’ lack of faithless-elector sanctions, and state legislatures and executive officials’ uneven commitments to enforcing what laws there are. Supreme Court precedents are subject to interpretation, and government officials might try to settle the election before judicial processes conclude.
The United States Code in Title 3, Chapter 1 sets out this election’s presumptive Electoral College timetable. Any of these dates could be faithless elector flashpoints.
By December 8: State executives are to resolve disputes over, and designate, their state’s electors (those named by the party whose candidates won the state’s popular vote) by sending a “certificate of … ascertainment” to the U.S. Archivist.
According to various scenarios, however, leaders of several swing-state, Republican-majority legislatures, using their federal constitutional authority, might appoint separate slates of electors, thereby setting up conflicts with the presumptively faithful electors certified by state executive authorities. This could happen in key states like Pennsylvania, where the governor is a Democrat but the legislature is controlled by Republicans. Legislatures might claim, for example, a fraud-riven popular vote that renders the state-certified electors unrepresentative of the legitimate popular vote. Or they might claim that the vote count is proceeding too slowly to allow the state to meet the December deadlines. Court battles would no doubt ensue—see Bush v. Gore (2000).
On December 14: The states’ designated slates of electors (which, as noted might not be clear in some states), meet in their respective state capitals to cast the official votes that elect the president.
Even if a state’s winning candidate is clear and his or her electors certified, the electors themselves may violate their pledges to vote for that candidate. In an Electoral College blowout, faithless electors will not matter. If the apparent vote is close—even tied at 269-269, which isn’t impossible—faithless electors could matter greatly.
At least since 1920, electoral vote margins have mostly been sufficient to prevent a few faithless electors from depriving the Electoral College winner of a majority. Today, that number is at least 270 electoral votes—538/2 + 1. In seven elections, however, the winner’s Electoral College votes were less than 40 over the bare majority and in three they were less than 30. In three of those years (1948, 1960, and 1968) third parties got electoral votes, but in 1976, 2004, and especially 2016, faithless electors affected the final tally but didn’t affect the outcome.
| Winner | Loser | Other | Total | Winner’s margin over bare majority | |
| 1948 | 303 (Truman) | 189 | 39 * (Thurmond) | 531 | 38 |
| 1960 | 303 (Kennedy) | 219 | 15 § ( Byrd) | 537 | 35 |
| 1968 | 301 (Nixon) | 191 | 46 * (Wallace) | 538 | 32 |
| 1976 | 297 (Carter) | 240 | 1 x | 538 | 28 |
| 2000 | 271 (Bush) | 266 | 537# | 3 | |
| 2004 | 286 (Bush) | 251 | 1 x | 538 | 17 |
| 2016 | 304 (Trump) | 227 | 7 x | 538 | 35 |
x Faithless electors
# One abstention
§ Senator Harry Byrd was not a declared candidate but several unpledged and faithless electors from Southern states voted for him (C. Herman Pritchett, The American Constitution 314 (2d ed., 1968).
In 2020, a more robust faithless elector presence, in a close Electoral College vote—catalyzed by a super-polarized environment—could change the apparent winner or send the election to the House of Representatives. With those possibilities, on the other hand, party leaders would become much more aggressive in policing or seeking to replace faithless electors. And, again, time-consuming court battles would ensue.
Faithless electors sometimes make idiosyncratic votes, but they also make strategic votes to try to push the election into the House of Representatives, as seen in the two disputes that led to this summer’s Supreme Court faithless elector decision.
In Washington state, as the Supreme Court summarized it, three Democratic-party electors who had pledged to vote for Hillary Clinton voted instead for Colin Powell. In Colorado, a Democratic elector voted for former Ohio Republican governor John Kasich.
Their strategy was to encourage enough electors pledged to Donald Trump in other states to become similarly faithless and thus deprive Trump an Electoral College majority. But only seven electors across the country followed suit. The three Washington faithless electors incurred $1,000 fines under a provision since replaced with one allowing the removal and replacement of faithless electors. The Colorado secretary of state replaced the Kasich elector with one who voted for Clinton. The replaced elector and two others who wanted to vote for Kasich alleged a violation of their right to cast their electoral votes as they preferred
Similar skirmishes and variations on them might play out this year, albeit with greater numbers of electors willing to go rogue and in multiple states under their own statutes with ensuing court challenges.
By December 23: States are to send their electoral votes to the president of the Senate ( i.e., Vice President Pence).
This assumes, however, that by this point each state has an agreed-upon slate of electors—including having replaced faithless electors or accepted them.
On January 6: With the vice president presiding, the electoral votes are tallied before the newly convened Senate and House of Representatives, and a president-elect certified—assuming a candidate gets an Electoral College majority of at least 270.
How battles over competing slates of electors would play out during the tally could depend in part on which party controls the newly seated House and Senate. Divided government could produce challenges to Pence’s decisions as to which competing slates of electors to accept.
In the end, faithless elector disputes are unlikely to upset this presidential election. Then again, this election cycle has redefined “unlikely.”
Recently white supremacy has been exposed to another level. Hopefully people understand how powerful a vote means. They hate mail in voting for the simple fact you can’t suppress the vote as easily
he's right
Do you understand what this means above? It doesn't mean they didn't actually do it. It means they were retroactively fined for doing it. The very evidence you're providing proves that it CAN be done. The votes were indeed TALLIED. Go check it now.
Colin Powell did indeed get 3 CERTIFIED EC votes
Monday’s Electoral College results prove the institution is an utter joke
The liberal effort to encourage electors to defect only further degraded American political norms.
www.vox.com
Read this. You're literally trying to argue that something can't happen THAT JUST HAPPENED IN 2016.
Can the Electoral College be subverted by “faithless electors"? | Brookings
The Electoral College is made up of real people, who on rare occasions have defied their party.
Every four years, Americans rediscover the 538-member Electoral College, the convoluted mechanism that the Constitution (Article II, section 1 and Amendment XII ), federal statutes, and state laws prescribe for selecting the president. Electors rarely appear on ballots, but when voters pull the lever for president and vice president, they are actually voting to authorize competing slates of electors who will cast the official votes at a later date. The founders envisioned electors as free agents, selected by the voters to be what Alexander Hamilton described in Federalist 68 as “men most capable of analyzing” presidential candidates. Over the years most have forgotten that electors are actual people, and the Founders’ vision has morphed almost uniformly into 538 party-selected, faceless robots.
Russell Wheeler
Visiting Fellow - Governance Studies
Following the November popular vote, each state formally designates its electors, specifically those electors selected by the political party of—and pledged to vote for—the state’s popular vote-winning candidate. In December those electors meet in each state to cast their official electoral votes, which the states send to Washington for January’s official tally. The winning side in all but Maine and Nebraska gets all the state’s electoral votes regardless of the popular vote division. The House of Representatives decides presidential elections if there is no Electoral College majority (most recently in 1824), although the 1876 election was resolved by horse trading after a special commission ended voting disputes.
Today’s electors pledge to vote faithfully for their party’s candidate. American history has seen a handful of faithless electors—156 by one count—who vote for someone other than that candidate. Faithless electors have never changed an election outcome. But in this chaotic election year, their potential to disrupt the presidential election may loom larger. As a further twist, state legislatures in battleground states might try to replace state-certified electors with alternative slates of faithless-elector equivalents.
Reasonable people debate the Electoral College’s winner-take-all assignment of electors and slight small-state favoritism (every state gets two electoral votes, regardless of size, plus its number of House members). But only some tricorn hat society would defend using human-being electors. Absent the constitutional mandate, states could simply certify the popular vote and transmit the electoral vote to Washington.
The Constitution, though, requires electors to be people. To constrain their behavior, the District of Columbia and over 30 states have laws requiring electors to vote faithfully for their party’s winning candidate. Around 20 states also have laws to replace faithless electors or penalize them for violating their pledge. The Supreme Court upheld a faithful elector requirement in 1952. In 2020 it upheld two state laws imposing sanctions on faithless electors—in both cases because the Constitution authorizes states to appoint electors “in such a manner as the legislature . . . may direct.”
These decisions, though, hardly ensure smooth faithless-elector sailing in 2020. What could go wrong? Plenty if there is no clear-cut winner. The presence of a highly polarized electorate and an unconventional president have given rise to many scenarios that take the election past November and into the House of Representatives. Disputes in the states will get arcane fast, owing to state law variations, most states’ lack of faithless-elector sanctions, and state legislatures and executive officials’ uneven commitments to enforcing what laws there are. Supreme Court precedents are subject to interpretation, and government officials might try to settle the election before judicial processes conclude.
The United States Code in Title 3, Chapter 1 sets out this election’s presumptive Electoral College timetable. Any of these dates could be faithless elector flashpoints.
By December 8: State executives are to resolve disputes over, and designate, their state’s electors (those named by the party whose candidates won the state’s popular vote) by sending a “certificate of … ascertainment” to the U.S. Archivist.
According to various scenarios, however, leaders of several swing-state, Republican-majority legislatures, using their federal constitutional authority, might appoint separate slates of electors, thereby setting up conflicts with the presumptively faithful electors certified by state executive authorities. This could happen in key states like Pennsylvania, where the governor is a Democrat but the legislature is controlled by Republicans. Legislatures might claim, for example, a fraud-riven popular vote that renders the state-certified electors unrepresentative of the legitimate popular vote. Or they might claim that the vote count is proceeding too slowly to allow the state to meet the December deadlines. Court battles would no doubt ensue—see Bush v. Gore (2000).
On December 14: The states’ designated slates of electors (which, as noted might not be clear in some states), meet in their respective state capitals to cast the official votes that elect the president.
Even if a state’s winning candidate is clear and his or her electors certified, the electors themselves may violate their pledges to vote for that candidate. In an Electoral College blowout, faithless electors will not matter. If the apparent vote is close—even tied at 269-269, which isn’t impossible—faithless electors could matter greatly.
At least since 1920, electoral vote margins have mostly been sufficient to prevent a few faithless electors from depriving the Electoral College winner of a majority. Today, that number is at least 270 electoral votes—538/2 + 1. In seven elections, however, the winner’s Electoral College votes were less than 40 over the bare majority and in three they were less than 30. In three of those years (1948, 1960, and 1968) third parties got electoral votes, but in 1976, 2004, and especially 2016, faithless electors affected the final tally but didn’t affect the outcome.
* Third party
Winner Loser Other Total Winner’s margin over bare majority 1948 303 (Truman) 189 39 * (Thurmond) 531 38 1960 303 (Kennedy) 219 15 § ( Byrd) 537 35 1968 301 (Nixon) 191 46 * (Wallace) 538 32 1976 297 (Carter) 240 1 x 538 28 2000 271 (Bush) 266 537# 3 2004 286 (Bush) 251 1 x 538 17 2016 304 (Trump) 227 7 x 538 35
x Faithless electors
# One abstention
§ Senator Harry Byrd was not a declared candidate but several unpledged and faithless electors from Southern states voted for him (C. Herman Pritchett, The American Constitution 314 (2d ed., 1968).
In 2020, a more robust faithless elector presence, in a close Electoral College vote—catalyzed by a super-polarized environment—could change the apparent winner or send the election to the House of Representatives. With those possibilities, on the other hand, party leaders would become much more aggressive in policing or seeking to replace faithless electors. And, again, time-consuming court battles would ensue.
Faithless electors sometimes make idiosyncratic votes, but they also make strategic votes to try to push the election into the House of Representatives, as seen in the two disputes that led to this summer’s Supreme Court faithless elector decision.
In Washington state, as the Supreme Court summarized it, three Democratic-party electors who had pledged to vote for Hillary Clinton voted instead for Colin Powell. In Colorado, a Democratic elector voted for former Ohio Republican governor John Kasich.
Their strategy was to encourage enough electors pledged to Donald Trump in other states to become similarly faithless and thus deprive Trump an Electoral College majority. But only seven electors across the country followed suit. The three Washington faithless electors incurred $1,000 fines under a provision since replaced with one allowing the removal and replacement of faithless electors. The Colorado secretary of state replaced the Kasich elector with one who voted for Clinton. The replaced elector and two others who wanted to vote for Kasich alleged a violation of their right to cast their electoral votes as they preferred
Similar skirmishes and variations on them might play out this year, albeit with greater numbers of electors willing to go rogue and in multiple states under their own statutes with ensuing court challenges.
By December 23: States are to send their electoral votes to the president of the Senate ( i.e., Vice President Pence).
This assumes, however, that by this point each state has an agreed-upon slate of electors—including having replaced faithless electors or accepted them.
On January 6: With the vice president presiding, the electoral votes are tallied before the newly convened Senate and House of Representatives, and a president-elect certified—assuming a candidate gets an Electoral College majority of at least 270.
How battles over competing slates of electors would play out during the tally could depend in part on which party controls the newly seated House and Senate. Divided government could produce challenges to Pence’s decisions as to which competing slates of electors to accept.
In the end, faithless elector disputes are unlikely to upset this presidential election. Then again, this election cycle has redefined “unlikely.”
No, I'm not. I'm simply stating what the laws are regarding electors. Granted, each state has different laws but the majority of states have the same laws.
I'm well aware of what happened in 2016. In fact, you'll notice I referred to it in my prior post so you're not giving me any new information.
Of course, I understand. Do you? What are you trying to say? I've never said it couldn't be done. All I'm stating is the laws pertaining to electors. And as we've seen, faithless ones have been replaced and also have had minimal effect on the outcome.
He was getting heated and he has every right to. He's absolutely correct.
Did you read what you highlighted? You made my point above for me.
I said it multiple times. You're either not reading it or struggling with comprehension. I said norms and laws matter "until they don't". You mentioned the certification in January actually matters. I said every other certification before that SHOULD matter, but clearly, there are loopholes that can erode the process.
The state certification SHOULD be final. However, we know it isn't. Having "minimal effect" doesn't mean it has NO effect. That's why I said the margin by which Trump lost matters. Had he won GA and PA, that certification wouldn't mean shit because we'd be in a real constitutional crisis and I clearly showed (and your own highlights did as well) that certified vote counts can be broken by faithless electors in a plethora of states.
And that goes back to my ultimate point. Trump has taught us how much we're ruled by norms instead of undeniable laws.
I'm adding nuance to what you're mentioning because it's VERY nuanced when you have an aspiring despot who doesn't respect the law or norms.
Did you read that I said MOST of the states?
You keep zigging and zagging and I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. I'm just sure you're doing a poor job of it. Anyway, the laws are there for anyone to read, yourself included. Draw whatever conclusions you wish. Me? I'm done with this "discussion."
People this boat sailed officially on Saturday Biden is up by 5 million popular votes and he’s most likely going to hit 300 EC. What’s done is done. What Republicans really need to worry about in the future is Georgia. The southern wall for the Republicans is starting to break.
Last edited:
You're the one zigging and zagging. You're opposing my argument by actually agreeing with it.
AZ and GA should be called. GA won't because it's not outside of the recount numbers. Gotta stop letting Trump subvert the process.
That's not what you originally said champ. That's what I said. You said you didn't understand why I was saying some electors in their state could subvert the process.
This is what you originally said:
There have been openly racist candidates that have run for President before (Buchanan, Ron Paul Sr) but none energized rural voters like Trump.
Similar threads
