If Trump can convince enough electors to relect him

It is absurdly disingenuous to assert that the president has no say, especially no monumental say, in how members of their party in both chambers of Congress vote. If Biden expresses support to expand the court, are you suggesting that Pelosi and Schumer would actually contravene?

 

That web page provides no evidence that this election, in comparison to all the other elections since the inception of the commonwealth, was more secure than any other election. I want to see the hard data, and the methodology that was followed to render that data, that backs up the assertion that this election was most secured. Usually, such an exposé is in the form of a PDF file, not an HTML document. Could you provide that please? That way I can fact-check it to see if it holds water. Right now, I see that outrageous statement about how this was the most secured election as an empty, political statement by someone who wanted to stick their nose in a political dispute, even though they are supposed to be apolitical.

 

I haven't checked the record, but in the annals of history, I'm sure I'd find it, but the more important point is they would because of state laws, and the fact of the law in place is WHY there are no faithless electors in those states, as it would be a futile effort.

 

How it would work, ( as I understand it ) is the prez establishes a bipartisan commission to study the issue on court reform, and sends their report over to congress for a bill, and the the senate and congress go back and forth until they have a compromise bill, which goes to the president. This report may, or may not include 'more seats' ( but if the prez wills it, they might figure on a way to justify it, and there are compelling reasons to add seats, by the way )

If the president doesn't like it ( say they short circuited the commission's recommendation too much ) he could veto it and send it back down until they come up with something he wants.

He, therefore, has a LOT to do with the final bill. Unless I'm missing something, I should think it's done via normal legislative process.

 

There have been just over 90 faithless elector votes, even in 2016, and although the state could replace them they don't have to.

States have generally punished the elector in some way instead.

States cannot switch an electors vote as that would be unconstitutional.

 

All this talk of secession is nonsense. Utter nonsense.

 

Hmmm, someone else said that in 1860 also.

 

on 2016 it was 306 Trump, 232 Clinton.

On 2020, it was 232 Trump, 306 Biden.

I remember both election nights, though Biden's took longer owing to the virus causing more mail in ballots. .

 

That isn't the point, there NEVER has been a total 'SLATE REPLACEMENT'.

Capiche? Just ad hoc electors doin' their thang.

 

I know that, what is your point?

Someone said their votes would be replaced and I said it's never been done.

Not sure why you are making up your own debate.

 

So, you're comparing the events surrounding the confederate states, the ensuing civil war, and the reunification of the union, to what, some guys on PF talkin' about succession?

Really?

 

Ah, then we agree, we're good, then.

 

The supreme court ruled that states have the authority to throw out any EC vote which doesn't meet their laws. and replace the elector and have them revote.

We saw this in 2016, when a Texas elector was removed for refusing to vote for Trump. His vote was voided and the Texas legislature appointed a new elector who then cast a new vote.

 

He's trying to get them to change the laws in their states to allow the electors to vote for him even if he lost in that state. This is technically legal, There is no real oversight. But as it stands they can't allow their electors to go against existing law.

 

We are way past election night, and Hillary did not drag us into the courts 40 effing times.

 

Election night was 25 days ago.

 

No idea. My point is that they could.

 

I don't see how it could be legal. How can such a law take effect for an election that has already occurred? I understand the methods can be changed anytime they want, but would an attempt to use a law to retroactively change the outcome of the election pass constitutional muster? And that right there should tell us that this isn't going to happen. Any such legislation would be met with stiff opposition, both publically and officially. If the bill passes, it will surely be challenged. Three weeks is far from enough time to settle constitutional issues. This is just another Trump failure. Another loss. Trump thought he was fifty and oh going into the election. He may have been. (In his mind, anyway.) He's 0-fer what now? 40? 652?

Losing. MAGA.

 

Not legal - but if the dictator want to be is able to commit his coup, laws won't mean much anymore, except for the ones that Trump agrees with

 

You would have to find state by state details, then, because every state has its own system, but what CISA determines is the safety of those systems from outside tampering, either physically or electronically.

If you're looking to hold on to the notion that there was massive voter fraud, no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise. If the people who run the elections in each state tell us that they stand behind the accuracy of their count, regardless of which party currently runs that state, who am I to call them liars? And since every state has counters and poll workers working in two-party pairs, I think that's pretty good scrutiny. And in all of that, Trump and friends have yet to get a judge, any judge, even those appointed by The Donald himself, to do anything but toss their non-evidential, empty cases out. So far, I think they are at 1 in 38 or so.

I guess I just don't understand why Trump supporters remain in deep denial, finding endless insignificant or outright bogus details to whine about. The election is over, it was different from usual because of the pandemic, but actually went off better than expected. Biden won fair and square. Trump mounted a good fight, but it wasn't enough. He and his supporters need to accept the loss and move on to down ballot races in Georgia and getting good candidates ready for the 2022 midterms. Time's a'wastin'.

 

He can't. Trump knows this. Trump isn't the brightest bulb in the box, but he's a lot smarter than he acts on TV and Twitter.

Trump is driven by ego, not intellect. He's not concerned with the long term effects of his behavior. He's feeding ego, which is nothing surprising from him. He knows he lost. He can't get through a press conference without acting like a spoiled little brat child. He attacked another woman journalist. Said something like, "You're a lightweight. I'm the president...blah, blah, blah." He's a tiny pitiful mistake of a man.

I think he does know he lost. He did say, "Of course I'll leave."

 

I don't agree - I think he believes that he can steal this. He is just keeping his options open.

He got 25 or so Pa reps to go along with his coup attempt, but luckily not the Republicans in charge

 

Yes, I can see that, too. When you're dealing with someone who could do nothing to surprise you, you're left pretty much guessing.

Yeah, I have no idea what Trump is thinking. Whatever it is, it sure looks to me like a clinical matter.

 

My point, which no one seems to get for some odd reason, is that the president does not decide whether or not to add seats or determine how many to add, he can only recommend or make his preferences known.

 

Yes, but that wasn't due to political pressure from a sitting president of the same party. That elector was refusing to honor the votes of the majority of Texas voters.