The unanimously decided Faithless Electors cases (Chiafalo v Washington) from earlier this year were not vague in it's reasoning. Any lower court would rule against a concerted attempt for electors to vote against their state's popular vote:They were talking about this possibility on NBC yesterday or the day before that the electorate doesn't have to go along with their states vote. They didn't think it was likely but they clearly said it was possible. Didn't mention that there was any Supreme Court ruling preventing it from happening.
71 million votes for him. I am curious how many people are buying all this shit he is spewing and okay with him trying to undermine our democracy. I would like to hope a majority of them are turned off by this.
lol Pence probably dipped out back to Indiana on Tuesday night lol. He's not getting involved in this shit any further cause he wants to separate himself now and is glad people no longer refer to him when they do Trump. He's preparing for his 2024 run lol.The signs at the Four Seasons presser only say "Trump" and not "Trump Pence". Mike already left?
Good thing Biden is going to have 295 or 306 EV's anyway then. Take away PA and Trump still loses.There were 6 in 2016, the most ever. The Supreme Court ruling that the other poster was talking about was probably the ruling that states can create laws that force the electorate to vote in good faith and a bunch have.
Pennsylvania is not one of those states.
Just for my own anxiety reducing purposes...why not?
The funniest part of all this is I don't think any of the states in question even send ballots to registered voters. Biden just need Pennsylvania and that was all absentee as far as I can tell. Donnie told us those were the cool and very legal ones.He's technically right that they mailed out ballots that nobody asked for, but that's because in states that go fully vote by mail, they send ballots to *all* registered voters automatically, as things should be.
They've probably changed his password tho.i had a nightmare a few days ago that trump launched nukes around the world because he lost. Don't think that will ever happen though
It's just extremely rare because the candidates/campaigns choose their electors. Part of the process of filing the paperwork for running in a state is filing your slate of electors. They are generally well to-do partisans. Hillary Clinton for example is an elector for Biden in New York.
Motherfucker inciting violence with this sort of rhetoric. Hope the full-force of the federal government goes after him when he's out of office.
Yeah that only says states can create laws to ensure the electors vote in line with their state popular vote or make it very difficult to vote against it. Not every state has enacted such laws. Many have but not all. This doesn't mean they can't do that.The unanimously decided Faithless Electors cases (Chiafalo v Washington) from earlier this year were not vague in it's reasoning. Any lower court would rule against a concerted attempt for electors to vote against their state's popular vote:
State election laws evolved to reinforce that development, ensuring that a State's electors would vote the same way as its citizens. As noted earlier, state legislatures early dropped out of the picture; by the mid-1800s, ordinary voters chose electors. See supra, at 4. Except that increasingly, they did not do so directly. States listed only presidential candidates on the ballot, on the understanding that electors would do no more than vote for the winner. Usually, the State could ensure that result by appointing electors chosen by the winner's party. But to remove any doubt, States began in the early 1900s to enact statutes requiring electors to pledge that they would squelch any urge to break ranks with voters. See supra, at 5. Washington's law, penalizing a pledge's breach, is only another in the same vein. It reflects a tradition more than two centuries old. In that practice, electors are not free agents; they are to vote for the candidate whom the State's voters have chosen.
....
Early in our history, States decided to tie electors to the presidential choices of others, whether legislatures or citizens. Except that legislatures no longer play a role, that practice has continued for more than 200 years. Among the devices States have long used to achieve their object are pledge laws, designed to impress on electors their role as agents of others. A State follows in the same tradition if, like Washington, it chooses to sanction an elector for breaching his promise. Then too, the State instructs its electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens. That direction accords with the Constitution—as well as with the trust of a Nation that here, We the People rule.
because the electors are chosen by the party that wins, they are not gonna pick people who wont vote for their party
There were 6 in 2016, the most ever. The Supreme Court ruling that the other poster was talking about was probably the ruling that states can create laws that force the electorate to vote in good faith and a bunch have.
Pennsylvania is not one of those states.
This is so embarrassing, even for his "standards", a temper tantrum right in front of the whole world. Unbelievable.
Dude you shouldn't be giving yourself anxiety when Biden just won, not healthy. He is going to be inaugurated January 21st.Yeah that only says states can create laws to ensure the electors vote in line with their state popular vote or make it very difficult to vote against it. Not every state has enacted such laws. Many have but not all. This doesn't mean they can't do that.
The unanimously decided Faithless Electors cases (Chiafalo v Washington) from earlier this year were not vague in it's reasoning. Any lower court would rule against a concerted attempt for electors to vote against their state's popular vote:
State election laws evolved to reinforce that development, ensuring that a State's electors would vote the same way as its citizens. As noted earlier, state legislatures early dropped out of the picture; by the mid-1800s, ordinary voters chose electors. See supra, at 4. Except that increasingly, they did not do so directly. States listed only presidential candidates on the ballot, on the understanding that electors would do no more than vote for the winner. Usually, the State could ensure that result by appointing electors chosen by the winner's party. But to remove any doubt, States began in the early 1900s to enact statutes requiring electors to pledge that they would squelch any urge to break ranks with voters. See supra, at 5. Washington's law, penalizing a pledge's breach, is only another in the same vein. It reflects a tradition more than two centuries old. In that practice, electors are not free agents; they are to vote for the candidate whom the State's voters have chosen.
....
Early in our history, States decided to tie electors to the presidential choices of others, whether legislatures or citizens. Except that legislatures no longer play a role, that practice has continued for more than 200 years. Among the devices States have long used to achieve their object are pledge laws, designed to impress on electors their role as agents of others. A State follows in the same tradition if, like Washington, it chooses to sanction an elector for breaching his promise. Then too, the State instructs its electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens. That direction accords with the Constitution—as well as with the trust of a Nation that here, We the People rule.
The Supreme Court ruling has already been interpreted as meaning a state doesn't need a specific law to prevent faithless electors. Maine, for example, has no law that allows the removal of an elector yet have already declared their right to now do so.There were 6 in 2016, the most ever. The Supreme Court ruling that the other poster was talking about was probably the ruling that states can create laws that force the electorate to vote in good faith and a bunch have.
Pennsylvania is not one of those states.
Yeah it's like after a Jojo villain starts begging for his life after being defeatedThere's something weirdly calming about his tweets now. Like now that they don't matter they're just getting shouted into the void and peace remains.
71 million people looked at the last 4 years and said "yeah gimme 4 more years of this". This should cause anyone anxiety that is a reasonable person. Biden didn't win in a landslide like he should have. This country is still broken and Trumps base believe he was robbed.I think you might need to just take a deep breath. Biden won. He will have over 300 electoral votes. There might be a faithless electorate, although I think it's much more likely to flip the other way (for Biden/against trump), but there is absolutely no way there would be enough for Trump to magically get elected. Just like there is no way Trump will be able to sue himself to being president.
Let's not give these absurd impossibilities the time of day. All it does is needlessly increase anxiety.