V
Victoria33
Guest
Not really, this is one of the anomalies that is being dealt with, under-voting where only Biden was voted for on some ballots, no other names. Lots of ballots like that. Fact.
- Status
P
puer.dei
Guest
If they were smart enough to engineer a nationwide fraud, they were smart enough to know they need the House and Senate.
Last edited:
V
Victoria33
Guest
I don’t know what would constitutionally happen but I think if that were the case (I don’t know if it is), she would tend to be limited in her actions I would think.
P
pnewton
Guest
The 2000 election was far more interesting, and closer by a factor of a hundred, mostly because it was decided by one state, and that state was 1/20th as close as the closest state this year. Even then, a recount did not help.
What happened was that punch cards were not all read, so those that were not read were examined and argued ballot by ballot by both sides, hence the infamous dimpled and hanging chads. The recount of these could not be done as they were being done, with different standards, as a violation of the 14th Amendment. The court ruled 7-2 that “later arbitrary and disparate treatment” cannot be used. In other words, as it applies here, the standard set pre-election cannot be change post-election to affect the outcome. Even if some judge rules to allow a change, which I doubt, you can bet SCOTUS will overrule it based on Bush v. Gore.
Two interesting outcomes of this was that Gore might have won, had Florida’s electors been disallowed, which would have happened had no decision been made. And then my own personal crusade of swapping Florida with Puerto Rico as a state, so we did not have to go through that again. We could still keep 50 stars.
What happened was that punch cards were not all read, so those that were not read were examined and argued ballot by ballot by both sides, hence the infamous dimpled and hanging chads. The recount of these could not be done as they were being done, with different standards, as a violation of the 14th Amendment. The court ruled 7-2 that “later arbitrary and disparate treatment” cannot be used. In other words, as it applies here, the standard set pre-election cannot be change post-election to affect the outcome. Even if some judge rules to allow a change, which I doubt, you can bet SCOTUS will overrule it based on Bush v. Gore.
Two interesting outcomes of this was that Gore might have won, had Florida’s electors been disallowed, which would have happened had no decision been made. And then my own personal crusade of swapping Florida with Puerto Rico as a state, so we did not have to go through that again. We could still keep 50 stars.
T
tomarin
Guest
It’s a conspiracy that goes to the highest levels of government, I tells ya.
G
gam197
Guest
No the most important lawsuit that will come out of this election is do state governors have the right to change election policy.
The constitution states that only legislatures in each state can change that policy and PA Governor Wolf went to the legislature and they refused to take it up.
He then turned to the PA courts and the case went to the PA supreme court and they ruled he could change the election rules.
That is in question and again as I have stated on these forums many times, Justice Alito asked PA to keep the mail-in ballot after a certain time separate. He did not do that just because he could.
If this case comes before the US Supreme Court those ballots are essential to the case.
The constitution states that only legislatures in each state can change that policy and PA Governor Wolf went to the legislature and they refused to take it up.
He then turned to the PA courts and the case went to the PA supreme court and they ruled he could change the election rules.
That is in question and again as I have stated on these forums many times, Justice Alito asked PA to keep the mail-in ballot after a certain time separate. He did not do that just because he could.
If this case comes before the US Supreme Court those ballots are essential to the case.
Last edited:
M
MikeInVA
Guest
The electoral college has not voted, so there is no president-elect. What funding is either party entitled to? If there is funding to begin early transition efforts, has it actually been blocked? I would imagine that since the government is operating under a CR, there is no way for any funds to be provided to what would be a new project.
V
Victoria33
Guest
Deep state, just like,Russia gate I tells ya, ooops
It will be quickly resolved. I do not think there is sufficient fraud that would lead to a reversal of the winner in any state.
V
Victoria33
Guest
Okay, thanks for your point of view.
I will add in, you do seem pretty knowledgeable on all of this, you may be right.
I will wait for it to play out.
Last edited:
Whether or not you are I think it is baseless is irrelevant. He has the right to challenge the results in court, like Gore did.
V
Victoria33
Guest
Mathematically, PA not called.
If it goes Trump, I believe there are recounts already slated for WISC and GA.
Trump may win AZ.
It does seem PA can not be resolved without disallowing a lot of votes and both sides are active in the courts.
If it goes Trump, I believe there are recounts already slated for WISC and GA.
Trump may win AZ.
It does seem PA can not be resolved without disallowing a lot of votes and both sides are active in the courts.
That is the truly American thing to do, as well as accepting the results when the process is finished.
B
billsherman
Guest
I’m curious: at what point would you be willing to accept that Trump lost? Would it be when the lawsuits are all lost? Would it be when the votes are certified by the states? Would it be when the electors vote? Would it be when Congress certifies the electoral votes?
Or would it require Trump to actually say he lost, regardless of the legal process?
I think for a lot of people, and this is the dangerous thing, it will require Trump to actually admit defeat. All of the courts, electors, and Congress, will be biased.
That is a danger to the republic.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
I have a question that I don’t know the answer to.
If there is all of this swirling around, some lawsuits, some just allegations, and it comes to the day the state has to certify the results. What happens?
A couple of non-contentious states have already certified their results.
If there is all of this swirling around, some lawsuits, some just allegations, and it comes to the day the state has to certify the results. What happens?
A couple of non-contentious states have already certified their results.
B
billsherman
Guest
The results get certified, unless a court issues an injunction (which is looking increasingly unlikely).
The process of certifying election results is a mandamus act, which means it is just a rubber stamp. The Secretary of State for the various states does not have the power to refuse to certify or to change the result of the election. It’s a formality.
V
Victoria33
Guest
I will accept what the Courts say.
But a botched election is a botched election. We may well have the Courts saying, we simply do not want to overturn an election, that that is too much.
P
ProVobis
Guest
FWIW, 51 stars wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world. At least it’s divisible by three.
T
tomarin
Guest
The state election officials in all the battlefield states have said they have seen no signs of fraud or irregularities so you have no reason to call this election ‘botched.’ Please stop assuming what you want to believe, based on zero evidence. It is an offense to truth, and to our democratic process.
Last edited:
- Status