Some Trump electors voting illegally

[Dumb All Over]

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

Based on the dishonest assertions of the Salon article, not only do I assert with confidence that the null hypothesis of this thread is no electors voted illegally, I do so with much glee and great joy in my heart.

 

[theprestige]

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

I think there's a few different ways to look at it, all roughly equivalent. About the specific claim in Florida, the null hypothesis is that elector isn't an office.

 

[Dumb All Over]

I think there's a few different ways to look at it, all roughly equivalent. About the specific claim in Florida, the null hypothesis is that elector isn't an office.

Fair enough. I accept your take on it.

 

[theprestige]

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

It's not a claim. It's the null hypothesis engendered by the claim. It's perfectly skeptical to point out that the null hypothesis holds until the claim is supported with evidence.

In this case, it was just legal JAQing off. As if Congress is supposed to drop whatever it's doing and investigate how Florida defines a state office, for very concerned lawyers who apparently aren't even concerned enough to investigate it themselves.

 

[Dumb All Over]

This paper is Diebold-level ********.
[snip]

Excellent post. Your other fine contributions to this thread have not gone unnoticed by me.

 

[applecorped]

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.)

 

[phiwum]

It's not a claim. It's the null hypothesis engendered by the claim. It's perfectly skeptical to point out that the null hypothesis holds until the claim is supported with evidence.

That's not how logic really works. This notion is commonly used in science, of course, when one is using statistical methods to test a hypothesis, but that's not what's going on here.

 

[theprestige]

That's not how logic really works. This notion is commonly used in science, of course, when one is using statistical methods to test a hypothesis, but that's not what's going on here.

That's exactly how logic works. But okay, tell us what's going on here.

And tell us at what point you started to realize that "I don't know how Florida defines a state office" wasn't a good basis for claiming that Florida electors voted illegally. Hell, even the OP only made it two posts in before he realized just how badly his thesis had pooped the bed.

 

[phiwum]

That's exactly how logic works. But okay, tell us what's going on here.

And tell us at what point you started to realize that "I don't know how Florida defines a state office" wasn't a good basis for claiming that Florida electors voted illegally. Hell, even the OP only made it two posts in before he realized just how badly his thesis had pooped the bed.

Wait, are you sure I made any such claim. I don't think so.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[theprestige]

Wait, are you sure I made any such claim. I don't think so.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

You didn't make the claim. It's the thesis of this thread. You must have noticed it was unfounded at some point. What was that point?

 

[phiwum]

You didn't make the claim. It's the thesis of this thread. You must have noticed it was unfounded at some point. What was that point?

I thought the point was clear. You dismissed the claim that elector is an office in Florida without any argument, and then with some nonsense about null hypotheses.

Eventually, you gave an argument that I thought was plausible.

 

[theprestige]

I thought the point was clear. You dismissed the claim that elector is an office in Florida without any argument, and then with some nonsense about null hypotheses.

Eventually, you gave an argument that I thought was plausible.

The claim that elector is an office didn't have any evidence or argument. You didn't ask for a plausible argument then.

 

[Fizil]

As much as I loathe the idea of the Trump presidency, I have found the reaction of many other liberals to his election highly disturbing.

First, there is the complaint about the "undemocratic" nature of the Electoral College. OK, fine. I don't mind the Electoral College (though I would prefer all states to use 2 at-large, 1 per district, instead of winner take all), but I can certainly understand people wanting to abolish it.

But then, after making a stink about the "undemocratic" EC, I keep seeing arguments being raised that would actually make the EC less democratic in this election, just to get the result people want. First people encouraged electors to be faithless, unbinding their votes from the will of the people in their State. Once that failed we get this: people hoping some legal technicality can be used to to invalidate Trump electors votes, throwing the election to the even less democratic 1-vote per state in Congress in the hopes that Congress might decide not to go with Trump.

The hypocrisy of it all is just astounding me.

 

[phiwum]

As much as I loathe the idea of the Trump presidency, I have found the reaction of many other liberals to his election highly disturbing.

First, there is the complaint about the "undemocratic" nature of the Electoral College. OK, fine. I don't mind the Electoral College (though I would prefer all states to use 2 at-large, 1 per district, instead of winner take all), but I can certainly understand people wanting to abolish it.

But then, after making a stink about the "undemocratic" EC, I keep seeing arguments being raised that would actually make the EC less democratic in this election, just to get the result people want. First people encouraged electors to be faithless, unbinding their votes from the will of the people in their State. Once that failed we get this: people hoping some legal technicality can be used to to invalidate Trump electors votes, throwing the election to the even less democratic 1-vote per state in Congress in the hopes that Congress might decide not to go with Trump.

The hypocrisy of it all is just astounding me.

I am not sure it's all as hypocritical as it seems. People have different, and often ill-formed, opinions.

For instance, the notions of more or less democratic don't matter much to me. I have mildly elitist tendencies, and the idea that sometimes learned electors can overrule the populace might be okay with me in principle. What matters to me is not the popular vote in this election, but that the single worst candidate in history was chosen. (NOTE: I'm not claiming that the electors should have overturned the election, but the idea that they can overturn some elections is mildly comforting.)

To be sure, the wisdom of these electors is not particularly comforting. They're not the learned and wise electors of yore.

Anyway, others who regret this outcome have different values and would argue differently.

Now, to draw a fine line: there is nothing inconsistent in asserting that (1) we ought to go by the popular vote and (2) given the rules we have, the electors ought to be persuaded to overturn this election. There isn't any hypocrisy there, since (1) is about ideal situations and (2) about where we actually are.