re: If the Pennsylvania SOS said they weren't counting any white votes from the election?

quote:

---

First, quote the passage and second what action was taken outside if the legislature in PA.

---

Have you been under a rock?

quote:

---

So GTFU with not only your refusal to educate yourself on even the basics about a document you claim to hold dear, but your degenerative attacks on anyone who doesn’t automatically accept your daydreaming “alternative facts” as truth.

---

You're wrong.

quote:

---

One of the Trump lawsuits on this exact matter was filed in October to the USSC.


They placed the hearing after the EC vote.

They weren’t interested in changing the election. They will at most codify the law for the next time something happens.

---

That lawsuit was moot because PA didn't include those votes in its final tally.

Literally citied and quoted the constitution,

All you got was “NUH UH!”


Imagine you are the smart one of the small town bar drinking group.

quote:

---

I guess making "changes" is in the eye of the beholder and since no court would look at it because the law suit was brought "too late" or didn't have "standing"

---

Well, you are wrong. There is still a case pending with SCOTUS about a change that was made in the 11th hour in PA and those votes were never added to the tabulation. Now the court will likely choose not to hear the case since it is moot because the ballots would not change the outcome. This case was filed at the proper time, before the election and had moved through the courts. I am also concerned about the standing issues but cases like Texas v PA were doomed from their drafting and those drafting them should have known that, and likely did. The legal fight was helmed by and large by a group of ill prepared attorneys that failed in numerous ways.

quote:

---

there are millions of voters that feel disenfranchised.

---

Do they feel equally disenfranchised by the numerous red states like TX that also had governors, election boards and courts make changes to the election law? Again, if the legislatures had time to visit the changes by other entities (which occur routinely and not just in this election) the courts aren't going to give them a redo because they don't like the outcome.

The bottom line is filing suit over changes to the election law are almost always going to have to be filed BEFORE the election. You want to talk about disenfranchisement throwing out votes cast in accordance with the election procedures presented to voters at the time they vote is true disenfranchisement. You simply aren't going to be able to wait until after the election then file suit if you don't like the outcome. This was the vast majority of the suits.

The suits alleging fraud were horrible attempts, filed with poorly or non-vetted affidavits and claims from dubious experts. Don't think for a minute the courts didn't look through those proffers. People here also waved away the horrible syntax and spelling errors as if they didn't matter, on one hand they didn't but do you really think someone that files such an important case and misspells district in two different ways in two lines just naming the court also made sound legal arguments? Powell had to pray to the court to amend her pleadings because she said Dominion took votes from Biden and gave them to Trump. Shitty lawyering almost always produces shitty results.

quote:

---

In 1800, there was a dispute over the EC votes and Vice President Jefferson made a decision, on his own, to count the votes for himself as president and he won

---

There was no actual dispute of EVs it was a matter of a defective certificate and no objections were raised. He simply read the only slate from Georgia which was missing some pro-forma language. That is quite a distinction and also done before the Electoral Count Act was codified.