• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

discotheque

Member
Dec 23, 2019
3,862
"This claim about election fraud is disputed" is cowardly, just say "Joe Biden won the election according to AP/etc"
 

grand

Member
Oct 25, 2017
25,200
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.
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.
 

NaturalHigh

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,368
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.
 

Chrome Hyena

Member
Oct 30, 2017
8,779
The signs at the Four Seasons presser only say "Trump" and not "Trump Pence". Mike already left?
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.
 

ClickyCal'

Member
Oct 25, 2017
59,960
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.
Good thing Biden is going to have 295 or 306 EV's anyway then. Take away PA and Trump still loses.
 

Mr. Keith

Member
Oct 31, 2017
1,944
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.
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.
 

hydro94530

Chicken Chaser
Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,925
Bay Area
This piece of shit human being is fucking crazy and disgusting. But I love to see him continuing to look fucking stupid lol.
 

Bitch Pudding

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,202
This is so embarrassing, even for his "standards", a temper tantrum right in front of the whole world. Unbelievable.
 
Oct 25, 2017
10,751
Just for my own anxiety reducing purposes...why not?
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.
 

SwitchedOff

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,516
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.

Twitter needs to permanently suspend his Twitter account right now, he really is going to cause people to be attacked and murdered. A padded cell in a mental institution seems like an even better alternative.
 

Expy

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,874
We all saw this coming though.

I doubt anyone actually believed that Trump would concede without a fight.

Now we wait and see if the US legal system works.
 

orochi91

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,885
Canada
Truthfully, it's remarkable that he got that many to begin with.

71 million people were willing to live with this guy in charge for another 4 years...
 

HeySeuss

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
8,873
Ohio
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.
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.
 

McScroggz

The Fallen
Jan 11, 2018
5,975
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.

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.
 

ClickyCal'

Member
Oct 25, 2017
59,960
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.
Dude you shouldn't be giving yourself anxiety when Biden just won, not healthy. He is going to be inaugurated January 21st.
 

Bing147

Member
Jun 13, 2018
3,713
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.

Bingo, and every judge on that court confirmed. Even freaking Kavanaugh. If there was a borderline argument to be made, its possible the Republicans on the court would put their hand on the scale and tilt it that way, but they're not going to just give him the election. Judges like Gorsuch and Alito have a partisan lean for sure, but they care about the law.
 

grand

Member
Oct 25, 2017
25,200
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.
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.
 

Absoludacrous

One Winged Slayer
The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
3,193
There'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.
 

PhoenixDawn

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
1,622
There's just no way there would be faithless electors this time around, at least not in my opinion. Trump literally would need ~40 electors to break his way to even reach 270, there's no chance in hell that many would even coordinate to do that, let alone kill all of their futures just for a dumbass who is on his way out with 0 loyalty at all but to himself. I would not worry about that in the slightest, it's worth even less thought/concern than the lawsuits which are also basically getting dismissed already left and right and have no hope of changing the results of the election in any meaningful way, if at all.
 

Rivenblade

Member
Nov 1, 2017
37,142
He's out golfing today. He must really care about the integrity of this election. /s

Seriously breathing better today with this fucker gone.
 
Oct 28, 2017
13,691
What about the registered Republicans in states like mine who were mailed ballots without requesting them and mailed them back or deposited them at drop boxes? I know many, many people who did that!

Are those illegal???
 

HeySeuss

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
8,873
Ohio
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.
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.

There are protests all across the country with these nutbirds that the orange turd has radicalized to believe his lies. I'll feel better if Biden holds in AZ and GA.
 

transience

Found the ultimate water hazard
Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,277
I think I've decided that I hope he keeps this up until January, because the more time he spends whining on twitter, the less time is spent doing truly nefarious shit.