Some Trump electors voting illegally

[applecorped]

 

[phiwum]

The topic is electors voting illegally. In the absence of explicit evidence to the contrary, we presume they are innocent of the alleged crime.

When others have alleged to have evidence, then surely we stop presuming innocence until we see the evidence. You and I are not jurors here and don't play by those rules.

I confess I haven't looked at the evidence, but I'm not pretending to know whether the charges are apt or not. I'm content to let those who know the law come to a conclusion. So far, it looks like they've ignored the paper. Maybe they had good reasons, I don't know.

The states certified their electors, convened them to vote, and tallied those votes. It's up to those challenging the certification to show evidence. If they don't, then the certification stands. Elector is not an office.
ETA: Put it another way. Do you know how Florida certifies its electors?

Again, you say so just as a conclusion, without any argument to that effect.

 

[Dumb All Over]

You are not DOA. Do you agree that it is unclear if that is DOAs objection?

Friend, I would kindly ask that you not address or refer to me as DOA. Thanks.

 

[theprestige]

When others have alleged to have evidence, then surely we stop presuming innocence until we see the evidence. You and I are not jurors here and don't play by those rules.

I confess I haven't looked at the evidence, but I'm not pretending to know whether the charges are apt or not. I'm content to let those who know the law come to a conclusion. So far, it looks like they've ignored the paper. Maybe they had good reasons, I don't know.



Again, you say so just as a conclusion, without any argument to that effect.

The preceding paragraph is the argument in support of the hilited conclusion. Every time Florida certifies an elector who holds a state office, it certifies that elector is not a state office.

You could bring a suit, and argue the finer points of the law around the definition of state office, and appeal to precedent and common practice. You might, after all of that, obtain a judicial ruling that elector is a state office.

But we don't have that. What we do have, in the one context in which it actually matters, is a clear precedent and practice: elector isn't an office.

There is no allegation of evidence. There's the legal version of JAQing off. They're not making a legal argument. They're asking Congress to mount a legal investigation.

Which is why I said it's not Congress's problem. If they think there's a legal question, they should investigate it themselves. If they think there's a legal argument, with evidence, they should make that argument and present that evidence before a Florida court.

And until they do, precedent and practice establish that elector is not an office.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The preceding paragraph is the argument in support of the hilited conclusion. Every time Florida certifies an elector who holds a state office, it certifies that elector is not a state office.

You could bring a suit, and argue the finer points of the law around the definition of state office, and appeal to precedent and common practice. You might, after all of that, obtain a judicial ruling that elector is a state office.

But we don't have that. What we do have, in the one context in which it actually matters, is a clear precedent and practice: elector isn't an office.

There is no allegation of evidence. There's the legal version of JAQing off. They're not making a legal argument. They're asking Congress to mount a legal investigation.

Which is why I said it's not Congress's problem. If they think there's a legal question, they should investigate it themselves. If they think there's a legal argument, with evidence, they should make that argument and present that evidence before a Florida court.

And until they do, precedent and practice establish that elector is not an office.

I agree that it isn't an office in.practice, but can we say precedent? I would say it is untouched by legal precedent (like faithless elector laws).

 

[phiwum]

The preceding paragraph is the argument in support of the hilited conclusion. Every time Florida certifies an elector who holds a state office, it certifies that elector is not a state office.

You could bring a suit, and argue the finer points of the law around the definition of state office, and appeal to precedent and common practice. You might, after all of that, obtain a judicial ruling that elector is a state office.

But we don't have that. What we do have, in the one context in which it actually matters, is a clear precedent and practice: elector isn't an office.

There is no allegation of evidence. There's the legal version of JAQing off. They're not making a legal argument. They're asking Congress to mount a legal investigation.

Which is why I said it's not Congress's problem. If they think there's a legal question, they should investigate it themselves. If they think there's a legal argument, with evidence, they should make that argument and present that evidence before a Florida court.

And until they do, precedent and practice establish that elector is not an office.

Okay, I'll buy that elector is not an office in the state of Florida. I suppose other states could define the term differently, but I don't know that.

 

[Dumb All Over]

Okay, I'll buy that elector is not an office in the state of Florida.

Congratulations. You have just concluded that the information reported as true in the Salon article is now false. The article, upon which this entire thread is based, has no credibility.

 

[phiwum]

Congratulations. You have just concluded that the information reported as true in the Salon article is now false. The article, upon which this entire thread is based, has no credibility.

If what theprestige says is true, then I buy that the state of Florida doesn't regard elector as an office. If I'm not mistaken, there were other allegations (all academic at this point, I presume, since Congress already tallied the votes.

 

[Dumb All Over]

If what theprestige says is true, then I buy that the state of Florida doesn't regard elector as an office. If I'm not mistaken, there were other allegations (all academic at this point, I presume, since Congress already tallied the votes.

Are you talking about the other allegations presented in the Salon article? That article is not credible.

 

[Dumb All Over]

Actually (and surprisingly), I think we're getting somewhere.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Congratulations. You have just concluded that the information reported as true in the Salon article is now false. The article, upon which this entire thread is based, has no credibility.

And you had many opportunities to claim that was your objection rather than leaving it unstated. You may have been simply stalling for time until someone like ThePrestige both described and answered the point for you.

 

[phiwum]

Are you talking about the other allegations presented in the Salon article? That article is not credible.

To be honest, I have little opinion on the Salon article. My concern had to do with what appeared to be an unsupported claim, since settled.

I don't regard Salon as a particularly reliable source.

 

[Wolrab]

Surely, whether it is against the rules depends on the state. I don't know whether it is against the rules there, nor whether former officeholders count.(I don't think Bill Clinton and many others on this list hold offices. I'll bet that the 93-year-old does not.)

The corrupt governor, mayor of Rochester, and several assembly members are on the list. NYS does not have the law in question.

 

[phiwum]

The corrupt governor, mayor of Rochester, and several assembly members are on the list. NYS does not have the law in question.

So, New York isn't relevant then.

 

[theprestige]

To be honest, I have little opinion on the Salon article. My concern had to do with what appeared to be an unsupported claim, since settled.

I don't regard Salon as a particularly reliable source.

> Doesn't trust the source.
> Doesn't know the law.
> Doesn't have an opinion.
> Very concerned that someone dared to assert the null hypothesis.


Alrighty then, mister skeptic man.

 

[phiwum]

> Doesn't trust the source.
> Doesn't know the law.
> Doesn't have an opinion.
> Very concerned that someone dared to assert the null hypothesis.


Alrighty then, mister skeptic man.

I think you misunderstood me. You said, without argument, that elector is not an office. This was the extent of my concern.

I admit that it's possible that you gave the argument previously and I had overlooked it. If so, my apologies. In any case, I'll accept that, if what you said about Florida is accurate, then elector is not an office in Florida.

As far as asserting the null hypothesis, that's just nonsense. There is no null hypothesis in matters of law and convention. You don't get to presume that the law says elector is not an office, or that it says bologna is not a meat. It is simple silliness to think that there is a default position on these sorts of claims.

 

[theprestige]

I agree that it isn't an office in.practice, but can we say precedent? I would say it is untouched by legal precedent (like faithless elector laws).

Fine with me.

So is this all resolved now? You said you'd happily argue a few different points, but it seems like there's not really much argument to be had about any of them. The happiest arguments are the ones that never really get started, I suppose.

 

[Cylinder]

This paper is Diebold-level ********.

Florida AG Pam Bondi, et al. is an unlawfully seated elector by virtue of being a dual office-holder.

Looking at the 2016 slate of prospective Democratic electors, very quickly I find Mia Jones, Florida Representative for FL-14 at which point I stopped searching.

Looking at the actual presidential electors from the state of Florida voting for Pres. Obama in 2012, I find:

Buddy Dyer, then Mayor of Orlando
Joe Gibbons, then member of the Florida House of Representative
Audrey Gibson, then member of the Florida Senate
Jean Monestime, then Commissioner, Miami-Dade County
Alan Williams, then Member, Florida House of Representatives

Mr. Obama's electors from 2008:

Joe Gibbons, then member, Florida House of Representatives
Tony Hill, then member, Florida Senate
Jared Moskowitz, then Parkland City Commissioner
Frederica Wilson, then member, Florida House of Representatives

Florida's slate of electors were improperly seated by virtue of a combined list of Presidential and Vice Presidential electors

Once again, looking at the 2016 Resolution of the Executive Committee of the Flordia Democratic Party Designating Electors for President and Vice President of The United States I find a like manner of listing -- one list designating electors specifically for both seats. The Libertarian Party list does seem to suffer the defect of failing to designate electors for Vice President. Likewise the Constitution Party -- which may point to some quirk of law for alternative political parties. Maybe I'll find the time peruse Florida's election statutes with that in mind.

North Carolina electors were unlawfully seated by virtue of residency

The paper cites North Carolina's GS 163-1(c).

On Tuesday next after the first Monday in November in the year 1968, and every four years thereafter, or on such days as the Congress of the United States shall direct, an election shall be held in all of the election precincts of the State for the election of electors of President and Vice-President of the United States. The number of electors to be chosen shall be equal to the number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which this State may be entitled. Presidential electors shall not be nominated by primary election; instead, they shall be nominated in a State convention of each political party as defined in G.S. 163-96 unless otherwise provided by the plan of organization of the political party; provided, that in the case of a candidate for President of the United States who has qualified to have his name printed on the general election ballot as an unaffiliated candidate under G.S. 163-122, that candidate shall nominate presidential electors. One presidential elector shall be nominated from each congressional district and two from the state-at-large, and in addition, the State convention of each party and the unaffiliated candidate shall each nominate first and second alternate electors who shall serve if their slate is elected as provided by G.S. 163-209 and if there is a vacancy as provided by G.S. 163-210.​

The paper seems to assert that the from prescribes some residency requirement but what exactly is that requirement? Why did the legislature choose the term from -- which could as easily be parsed to refer to the seat and not the elector -- when it has at its disposal the well-defined statutory term resident?

The North Carolina State Constitution -- not surprisingly -- addresses qualifications for the various elective offices.

Article VI; Section 6 provides:

Every qualified voter in North Carolina who is 21 years of age, except as in this Constitution disqualified, shall be eligible for election by the people to office.

Article 6; Section 8 provides:

Second, with respect to any office that is filled by election by the people, any person who is not qualified to vote in an election for that office.

On one hand, there is a seemingly bare assertion by this paper that the word from sets up a residency requirement. On the other, North Carolina's constitution asserts the qualifications as that of having attained the age of 21 and being elibile to vote in the election for which one wishes to be a candidate -- (among others that don't apply to this argument.)

 

[Dumb All Over]

Erm, I believe the null hypothesis for this thread is no elector voted illegally.

 

[phiwum]

Erm, I believe the null hypothesis for this thread is no elector voted illegally.

Seems to me that a skeptic would withhold judgment rather than assert this claim with confidence.

I'll grant that at this point, the fact that such allegations have gone nowhere gives some evidence that no illegality occurred.