re: Again, I am disappointed by my party

quote:

---

Odds are high that both are cheating. Never understood how the whole cheating deal became so one sided.

---

quote:

---

Alternate electors is the acceptable process when the results are in question.

---

quote:

---

Can you provide a source or two for this, jackwad?

---

this is true in some states.

Some states electors are law bound to respect the popular vote in their state.
Some states it is only a "faithful" obligation, but no forbidden by law.
In other states it is that state's Sec. of State that assigns electors, presumably based on popular vote.

In short, it is up to the states to choose electors however they want to. In front of a joint session of congress (because there is an elector for each senator and each rep) the states submit their selection.

Sometimes they go off the rails. For example, in 2016 seven electors refused to certify for Trump and submitted for HRC. It is up to the pro-temp of the senate (VP, Biden in this example) whether to accept these "alternate" electors and to verify if they are going against the wishes of their state (if there are laws in place for that state).

The constitution, US constitution, does not require electors to follow the popular vote. It is up to the state. These are known as "faithless" electors. MI does not have a law forbidding "faithless" electors so those infamous 'alternates' in MI were perfectly legal but could be rejected by congress. After 2020 SCOTUS decided that a state can decide if it wants to remove faithless electors, but is not required to.

I put this in a post a couple of weeks ago to illustrate how the founding fathers saw the electoral college. In short, they didn't care how each state chose its electors, it was just required to choose them somehow and present themselves before congress...

In the first election after ratification in 1789 only 6 states chose their electors by a popular vote at all. In the other states the state legislature voted on who they wanted as president and that was that. For the most part, the founding fathers decided the states (as an entity) chose the president, not the people.

Trump and the RNC have vowed to harvest votes.

quote:

---

And I think everyone knows in some states your electors could vote how they see fit.

---

I think alot of people are completely unaware of that. Which is why I went a little overboard. Many people are unaware of just how strong the state is vs. the vote in a presidential election.

But are alternate electors acceptable? depends on the state

Can the VP reject electors? depends on the state (provided they don't hold an elected position)

What happens if VP rejects electors presented? depends on the state.
Only happened once and it was based on that elector having been elected to congress, which no one anticipated. That's basically the only rule against electors. The state submitted an alternate once VP rejected him.

Can VP (Pence) refuse to certify the election? No, he can only reject electors themselves, not replace them.

Can congress (joint) refuse to certify an election? sure can. Never been done before because you've refused the state's wishes, not the voters.

This is what I said

I don’t want to hear cheating as an excuse. 4 years to figure it out. I don’t care how hard it is to figure it out. They’re fricking politicians, most of them are rich and connected to even richer people. No excuse.

frick the “cheating” accusation just because Trump lost. If he loses again the “cheating” shite is just going to be pathetic.

quote:

---

If he loses again the “cheating” shite is just going to be pathetic.

---

speaking of pathetic

quote:

---

TN Tygah

---