• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Some Trump electors voting illegally

Dumb All Over said:
No.

I'm saying for the final time that all electors were constitutionally eligible and all voted legally.
Click to expand...

Oh, I get it. You stick the word "constitutionally" in there, so that the only requirements you care about are constitutional requirements. Clever.
 
Dumb All Over said:
During yesterday's vote count, the constitutional requirements are the only ones that mattered.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about that. You might be right. It might also be that, if one does not legally represent his state in the EC, then his vote doesn't count.

Anyway, no matter. The outcome is totally, completely and irreversably determined now. (Until the impeachment. Nah, just kidding, the Republicans seem to be sticking with their man, which is a shame. I'd like to see a little more spine.)
 
phiwum said:
I'm not sure about that. You might be right. It might also be that, if one does not legally represent his state in the EC, then his vote doesn't count.

Anyway, no matter. The outcome is totally, completely and irreversably determined now. (Until the impeachment. Nah, just kidding, the Republicans seem to be sticking with their man, which is a shame. I'd like to see a little more spine.)
Click to expand...
Perhaps it should be pointed out that no State challenged the eligibility of any of their electors. Why?
 
Dumb All Over said:
Perhaps it should be pointed out that no State challenged the eligibility of any of their electors. Why?
Click to expand...

Because most of the states that went to Trump tend to be Republican, so it's not in their interest to do so?

I haven't checked to be sure that there's a correlation between these Trump electors and Republican-controlled states, but it's a pretty safe bet.

Anyway, as I said, it's all done now. A clearly terrible human being, an ignorant, vindictive fool, will be president come January 20, and that's probably the right outcome given the election. So it goes.
 
The result if all 50 Electoral College votes were disallowed, at least as I understand it, would have been to force the selection of the President to the House of Representatives. The vote is one vote per state with a simple majority of 26 votes out of 50 required and the Republicans have a majority of Representatives in 32 states. The House can only pick from the top three receiving Electoral College votes so that would have been Clinton, Trump, and Powell. You still get Trump as President.
 
Last edited:
The challenge need not come from the delegation of that state. Any one member from the House of Representative and any one Senator who challenges the legitimacy of any electoral vote triggers a two hour debate within the Joint Session of Congress and a simple majority vote on the validity of the challenge. No Senator chose to object.
 
RandyK47 said:
The result if all 50 Electoral College votes were disallowed, at least as I understand it, would have been to force the selection of the President to the House of Representatives. The vote is one vote per state with a simple majority of 26 votes out of 50 required and the Republicans have a majority of Represtatives in 32 states. The House can only pick from the top three receiving Electoral College votes so that would have been Clinton, Trump, and Powell. You still get Trump as President.
Click to expand...


That's fairly close. Article II sets the quorum for the count at 2/3 of states, so the theoretical minimum would be 18 votes in a joint session where at least one member from only 34 states took part. Functionally though, outside some extreme circumstance, a simple majority of 26 of the 50 states.
 
PhantomWolf said:
While there appeared to be some irregularities, I can't see that they would have changed the final result had they been done correctly. I wouldn't be surprised if we were to look back at past elections, that we would find many of the same issues.

While it's not the answer they want, I'd say that the best line is to censure those that actually voted illegally, but keep the result since it would have been the same had all votes been legally done. There certainly doesn't appear to be illegality due to malice here, just incompetence.
Click to expand...

IMO nothing should be changed, as they are bound more or less to vote as requested by the state (well some did i the past vote against what voter requested but that is another story).

But let us look at the picture, shall we ? 50 EC elector not regular. And nobody bat much of an eye. But if there are 0.001% of irregular voting of normal voter, republican are calling for id verification and all sort of measure which will knowingly impair a much higher percentage of valid voter.

I find it extremely hypocrite that the republican are not on the barricade requesting this issue immediately solved and checks put in place in future so that it does not happen again (ETA : or heck the vote invalidated !).
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
50 EC elector not regular.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
I find it extremely hypocrite that the republican are not on the barricade requesting this issue immediately solved and checks put in place in future so that it does not happen again (ETA : or heck the vote invalidated !).
Click to expand...

So that what doesn't happen again? Nothing happened.
 
Cylinder said:
That's fairly close. Article II sets the quorum for the count at 2/3 of states, so the theoretical minimum would be 18 votes in a joint session where at least one member from only 34 states took part. Functionally though, outside some extreme circumstance, a simple majority of 26 of the 50 states.
Click to expand...

It is close but a cushion of 6 states is not bad. Got to figure short of being on their death bed most Representatives would show up for any potential vote. I don't think they've have to go directly from the Electoral College vote into session on 6 January. It just has to be done before Inauguration Day. I actually would have liked it to have happened. Not so much because I expected a change in the President-Elect, more to experience it from a historical experience.
 
Meadmaker said:
I like this sort of legal trivia an nitpicking. I find it interesting. So, I checked out the article.

Sadly, as interesting as it is, it's a legal fail.

First, the objections to the electors are mostly based on a "dual office" objection. Many states have provisions that an individual may not simultaneously hold more than one state office. e.g. They can't be the state Attorney General and be the state Secretary of State. The claim is that therefore they cannot be both Attorney General and an elector. It is unclear to me that "elector" is an office. Maybe some states have specific definitions of exactly what constitutes an "office", and elector qualifies, but in the absence of such a definition, I would assume that elector isn't an office.

The other claim is that electors do not live in the districts they represent. I suppose this must be related to some provision in state law, because there's nothing in federal law about that.

But, suppose that it were found that the electors really were unqualified based on the laws of their states. What would be the remedy? Invalidate that state's electoral vote? Surely not. The remedy would be to order the states to appoint a substitute elector in accordance with their own state law, and they would appoint a new Trump elector.

There is one relevant aspect of this lawsuit. It shows how fragile our electoral system is. This antiquated notion of the electoral college creates opportunities for political mischief that could be quite dangerous. The truth is that over 200 million people are eligible to vote, but 538 people elect a president. Those 538 people have the freedom in some cases to vote for whomever they wish. In other cases, they are constrained by state law, which means there are opportunities for meddling. Meanwhile, there is a congressional role which, in theory, could invalidate some of those 538 votes. It's a disaster waiting to happen.
Click to expand...

No, being an Elector is not an actual office.

Its merely a ceremonial title.

However if a State does mandate that an Elector must live in the district that they represent, then we do have something.

But as you already stated, if a Trump Elector does get disqualified the State will likely allow them to simply nominate a new Elector who is loyal to Trump.

We need to remember that these aren't just Party-affiliated Electoers, but CANDIDATE-affiliated Electors.
 
Dumb All Over said:
Wrong.


So that what doesn't happen again? Nothing happened.
Click to expand...

Hmmms, lets see....

On one hand a group of non-partisan lawyers who wrote a report with evidence and submitted it to Congress.

On the other hand an anonymous internet poster who is making assertions without evidence.


Who should I believe...... That's a really hard one that is.
 
Dumb All Over said:
As I did at the top of this page, I challenge you to name one single elector who voted illegally.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one making any claims. The lawyers that filed the report made claims and backed it with evidence. You are making claims and backing it with nothing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom