Openbusiness:
Where is the crookedness There's no similarities between their system of choosing a Presidential election winner and our system. They have Electoral College, we don't. And speaking of Electoral College, it is 100% LEGAL for an Elector to be a "Faithless Elector". There is no crookedness or amateurish behavior involved, especially when you have credible allegations and litigations of voter fraud involved. The Electors are American citizens too na, and they can see what is happening by themselves. So if they choose to be Faithless Electors, then it is justified. There's no illegality about it.

No it isn't not 100% legal to be a faithless elector. In most states they pay a fine

And secondly if you think, 20 democrat electors sent from a state like PA, would vote trump is one of the biggest jokes i have heard

In most cases they switch to in paty votes, i.e i belive 1 or 2 might vote sanders instead.

Timiofak:


No it isn't not 100% legal to be a faithless elector. In most states they pay a fine

And secondly if you think, 20 democrat electors sent from a state like PA, would vote trump is one of the biggest jokes i have heard

In most cases they switch to in paty votes, i.e i belive 1 or 2 might vote sanders instead.

$1K fine in some States is not a big deal. And Electors are chosen by the State's Legislature not the Governors etc, and almost all the State Legislature is mixed with both Red and Blue. And for a State like PA, Republicans have many seats, so all the Electors there CANNOT lean Blue.

Openbusiness:
$1K fine in some States is not a big deal. And Electors are chosen by the State's Legislature not the Governors etc, and almost all the State Legislature is mixed with both Red and Blue. And for a State like PA, Republicans have many seats, so all the Electors there CANNOT lean Blue.

Sir in PA it as been certified and they have picked democratic slate of electors so dead that thought that you think all 20 would vote for trump, the case that was filed to withdraw certification was tossed out with prejudice

So all this you are saying is irrelevant, the only way the legislature could intervene as passed

By tomorrow half of them are out of there jobs. Simple

Openbusiness:
You don't still understand. That a case is being thrown out by the Lower Courts IS NOT a disadvantage to Trump. It is actually an advantage. Because the faster they thrown it out, the more they can APPEAL and the appeals keep pushing the case up and up till it gets to SCOTUS. Trump doesn't need to present full evidence now, that will be too stupid. As of now, they even have whistleblower Democrats ready to testify to voter fraud and how they participated and carried out voter fraud. But if these things are revealed now, it puts many witnesses lives at risk, because the Dems will go for assassination or threaten them to silence through the back door behind the scenes. And then it will slow down the case from reaching the SCOTUS fast enough. The mother of all litigation and evidence will be presented before the SCOTUS, not the lower Circuit Courts controlled by Dems. Trump is teaching you Politics 101 Roulette, sit back and learn

Bro i understand your pain & the fact that you're still in denial, bt come on, some of those judges that have thrown out Trump's cases are Republican appointed.
The truth is that SCOTUS ain't going to to overturn this election because Trump's campaign has no evidence of widespread electoral fraud. What they have is allegations & conspiracy theories. Media theatrics of allegations of widespread electoral fraud is easy & cheap. Bt the ball game is entirely different in the courtroom where you have to provide evidence.
The fact that there are majority conservative Justices in the SCOTUS doesn't mean they will overlook the law & lack of credible evidence & just make Trump the winner of an election he lost.

Eddie4God:


Bro i understand your pain & the fact that you're still in denial, bt come on, some of those judges that have thrown out Trump's cases are Republican appointed.
The truth is that SCOTUS ain't going to to overturn this election because Trump's campaign has no evidence of widespread electoral fraud. What they have is allegations & conspiracy theories. Media theatrics of allegations of widespread electoral fraud is easy & cheap. Bt the ball game is entirely different in the courtroom where you have to provide evidence.
The fact that there are majority conservative Justices in the SCOTUS doesn't mean they will overlook the law & lack of credible evidence & just make Trump the winner of an election he lost.

Read my initial post. This thread has nothing to do with a SCOTUS victory for Trump. Time is not on his side and the case most likely might never even get to SCOTUS before the Electoral College votes. This post is about the possibility of Trump winning through the Electoral College itself.

Timiofak:


Sir in PA it as been certified and they have picked democratic slate of electors so dead that thought that you think all 20 would vote for trump, the case that was filed to withdraw certification was tossed out with prejudice

So all this you are saying is irrelevant, the only way the legislature could intervene as passed

By tomorrow half of them are out of there jobs. Simple

PA certification is in currently in dispute by the PA State Legislature

Openbusiness:
Read my initial post. This thread has nothing to do with a SCOTUS victory for Trump. Time is not on his side and the case most likely might never even get to SCOTUS before the Electoral College votes. This post is about the possibility of Trump winning through the Electoral College itself.

I have read it. The chances of what you posted happening is far fetched.
But let us assume this does happen. when this is happening what do you think Biden & the Democrats will be doing? Just folding their hands & watching Trump subvert the will of the people through a constitutional loophole?
If this even happens, American democracy will be destroyed & it may likely lead to civil war.
Also it will set a very dangerous precedent. That is, in the future, any presidential candidate who lost can simply allege unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud & rigging & so use the same backdoor trick or loophole to get d presidency neglecting the will of the people. If this occurs one or two or more times, what is then left of American democracy?
The best course is still the court. However, that route is not going to save Trump because he lost to Biden fair & square.
Beside,stop reading those far right conservative & conspiracy theories blogs & news outlets.It is not good for ur mental & intellectual wellbeing. For credible Republican/conservative informations, try to read National Review & other sensible media outlets.

Openbusiness:
PA certification is in currently in dispute by the PA State Legislature

No it isnt, it as been certified and the people that wanted it uncertified went to court on thurday. Yesterday there case got tossed out.

Please read more.

Timiofak:


You wrote everything and kept surely

nothing is surely playing out, nothing at all

all of this is grift. And if Trump goes to the Supreme Court, with his pa loss, and they hear him out, and they agree to toss out mail in ballots in Pa, which is highly unlikely, that is basically impossible to toss half of the votes in a state

he still doesn't have 270 votes to land him the EC.

So I repeat nothing is surely happening.

You still don't understand what my original post is about. This is not a matter of Trump needing 270 Electoral votes to win. This is about the both candidates having a shortfall to 270 Electoral votes. If you remove the votes of all the several Swing States being contested by Court litigations, both candidates are under 270. If there are sufficient faithless Electors, then none of them will reach 270, which means the Elections are indecisive. An indecisive election means the power to decide who becomes President will go to the House of Representatives. Each State House of Reps has 1 Vote. Republicans have 29 States, and Democrats have 21. It is expected the State Reps will vote along party lines, which means Trump will automatically win if it comes to this. That's why Trump said if Biden can get the Electoral College Votes, then he will leave. But if Biden doesn't get it, Trump will win. Considering the extent of voter fraud and that many States are under dispute, there will most likely be sufficient Faithless Electors. Even the Democrats are afraid of this reality. It coul happen and I believe it will. Only time will tell.

Timiofak:


No it isnt, it as been certified and the people that wanted it uncertified went to court on thurday. Yesterday there case got tossed out.

Please read more.

Nawa oh! Court case is DIFFERENT from State Legislature sitting processes. The Republican members of House of Representatives in Pennsylvania have introduced a resolution to declare the certification invalid due to confirmed election irregularities. The outcome is yet to be finalized. This week we will know how far.
https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2020/11/27/pennsylvania-republicans-dispute-2020-election-results-resolution/

Openbusiness:
Nawa oh! Court case is DIFFERENT from State Legislature sitting processes. The Republican members of House of Representatives in Pennsylvania have introduced a resolution to declare the certification invalid due to confirmed election irregularities. The outcome is yet to be finalized. This week we will know how far.
https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2020/11/27/pennsylvania-republicans-dispute-2020-election-results-resolution/

Lmao, first of all. 23 out of about 150 members claimed there is irregularities, all republicans. Nothing is confirmed like you claim

And by tomorrow a good chunck of them would be out of work, this same article said it, only if you didnt read it

And certification is done, the only way they could rescind it is by court and court already tossed out there claims

Openbusiness:
You still don't understand what my original post is about. This is not a matter of Trump needing 270 Electoral votes to win. This is about the both candidates having a shortfall to 270 Electoral votes. If you remove the votes of all the several Swing States being contested by Court litigations, both candidates are under 270. If there are sufficient faithless Electors, then none of them will reach 270, which means the Elections are indecisive. An indecisive election means the power to decide who becomes President will go to the House of Representatives. Each State House of Reps has 1 Vote. Republicans have 29 States, and Democrats have 21. It is expected the State Reps will vote along party lines, which means Trump will automatically win if it comes to this. That's why Trump said if Biden can get the Electoral College Votes, then he will leave. But if Biden doesn't get it, Trump will win. Considering the extent of voter fraud and that many States are under dispute, there will most likely be sufficient Faithless Electors. Even the Democrats are afraid of this reality. It coul happen and I believe it will. Only time will tell.

Sir, the litigation is only in pa

Georgia would vote biden, arizona would, nevada would too, wisconsin, and most definitely michigan

Add that and still tell me how biden is below 270, its a miracle for 1 state to uncertify its vote, not to mention he needs 3 !!!! 3 ooo

Lmao. As you said time would tell

Openbusiness:

© OpenBusiness

Stop posting deluded rubbish...you don't know shit about our elections

Openbusiness:
The Osogbo weed you sold to me fah? Let me tell you how it works, an Appeal Court is not for retrial, so they don't usually take new evidence. The Appeal Court just checks the technicality of the ruling of the Lower Courts and if they reason no errors were made on technical grounds they will uphold but if they reason there were technicality errors, then they nullify the previous verdict of the Lower Court. But the Supreme Court can do a retrial.

I didn't have your time earlier today because I was at work.

There are 3 ways by which a case can reach the US Supreme Court (Scotus); we'll talk about one.

Certiorari, which means "to inform". This is used to inform Scotus that one would like federal circuit court's decision reviewed. This is the method Trump has used to elevate some cases to the Scotus.

Now, if Scotus decides to hear the case, both parties argue the case again with the same evidence as before. No new evidence is allowed. According to 35 U.S.C. Section 145, new evidence is only allowed to presented for Patent application cases.

So, I say it again: if by some miracle Scotus decides to involve itself in this political $hitstorm, it'll most likely laugh Trump's suit out of court like the lower courts did. Remember: Team Trump, despite what they say on Tv, aren't alleging fraud in their lawsuits, neither do they have any evidence to suggest that fraud took place, but they're still praying for millions of ballots to be thrown out for no reason.

Consider yourself schooled.

Source: https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/524572-how-does-a-case-reach-the-supreme-court
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2003-title35/USCODE-2003-title35-partII-chap13-sec145

Openbusiness:
You still don't understand what my original post is about. This is not a matter of Trump needing 270 Electoral votes to win. This is about the both candidates having a shortfall to 270 Electoral votes. If you remove the votes of all the several Swing States being contested by Court litigations, both candidates are under 270. If there are sufficient faithless Electors, then none of them will reach 270, which means the Elections are indecisive. An indecisive election means the power to decide who becomes President will go to the House of Representatives. Each State House of Reps has 1 Vote. Republicans have 29 States, and Democrats have 21. It is expected the State Reps will vote along party lines, which means Trump will automatically win if it comes to this. That's why Trump said if Biden can get the Electoral College Votes, then he will leave. But if Biden doesn't get it, Trump will win. Considering the extent of voter fraud and that many States are under dispute, there will most likely be sufficient Faithless Electors. Even the Democrats are afraid of this reality. It coul happen and I believe it will. Only time will tell.

Stop showing your ignorance.

1) The Supreme Court has ruled against faithless electors. It's illegal for an elector to be faithless. In Arizona, Michigan and Nevada, failure to vote as pledged cancels the vote and replaces the elector. So forget that idea of swing states helping Trump via faithless electors.


2) The speaker of the house is a democrat. She has to call for a meeting before the election is certified by the house. If she doesn't call for the meeting, she becomes acting President.

3) Pennsylvania and Nevada have already certified their elections for Biden which means Democratic electors have already been chosen.

4) Like so many people have told you, the Supreme Court is an appellate Court and you cannot introduce new evidence. Even if the Supreme Court by mistake allows you to introduce new evidence, it would send the case back to the lower court for retrial.

AZeD1:

1) The Supreme Court has ruled against faithless electors. It's illegal for an elector to be faithless. In Arizona, Michigan and Nevada, failure to vote as pledged cancels the vote and replaces the elector. So forget that idea of swing states helping Trump via faithless electors.

It's a little more complicated than that. The Supreme Court did not say it's illegal for an elector to be faithless. What they said was that states have the ability to make it so that it's illegal for an elector to be faithless. A lot of states have such laws but not all of them.

However, faithless electors are quite rare. After all, the electors are chosen to be people who will want to vote for their pledged candidate anyway. People who are faithless electors do so not to try to change the outcome of the election, but just to make some kind of political statement without actually changing the outcome. An election outcome actually being changed by faithless electors is extraordinarily unlikely.

RandomGuy48:

It's a little more complicated than that. The Supreme Court did not say it's illegal for an elector to be faithless. What they said was that states have the ability to make it so that it's illegal for an elector to be faithless. A lot of states have such laws but not all of them.

However, faithless electors are quite rare. After all, the electors are chosen to be people who will want to vote for their pledged candidate anyway. People who are faithless electors do so not to try to change the outcome of the election, but just to make some kind of political statement without actually changing the outcome. An election outcome actually being changed by faithless electors is extraordinarily unlikely.

And three of the swing states have laws to replace the votes cast by faithless electors.

Openbusiness:
Nawa oh! Court case is DIFFERENT from State Legislature sitting processes. The Republican members of House of Representatives in Pennsylvania have introduced a resolution to declare the certification invalid due to confirmed election irregularities. The outcome is yet to be finalized. This week we will know how far.
https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2020/11/27/pennsylvania-republicans-dispute-2020-election-results-resolution/

It was just a hearing by some Republican members in a hotel, even not in the Capitol. That's a glorified village meeting.

Openbusiness:
It's getting thrown out mainly by lower Circuit Courts who are mostly Judges appointed by Obama under the Obama admin, that is to say, Judges that lean LEFT and favor BLUE.

Wrong! All three judges that ruled in Pennsylvania Federal Court of Appeals are Republicans. The Judge (Stephanos Bibas) that wrote the briefing was appointed by Donald Trump. He even stated that the case is unwinnable cause it just stu.pid.

See below a snippet from the court briefing;

AZeD1:

And three of the swing states have laws to replace the votes cast by faithless electors.

True. However, the argument made was that due to the supposed electoral fraud going on (the supposed fraud that it seems no judge, whether appointed by a Democrat or Republican, has taken seriously), you would have a bunch of faithless electors, so this could be extended to other states. However, as noted, faithless electors are quite rare because the electors are specifically chosen to be people who are extremely likely to vote for the candidate. The electors that would be given to Trump are strong Republicans and the electors that would go to Biden are strong Democrats.

So when electors do go faithless, it's not to try to change the outcome of the election but to make some kind of rhetorical point. Indeed, I believe various faithless electors have said that they only voted for someone else because they knew it wouldn't change the outcome of the election.

So I do agree with you that the idea of faithless electors changing the outcome of the election is basically a pipe dream. I just wanted to clarify that the Supreme Court didn't say it was illegal to be a faithless elector, merely that states could make it so, and that a lot of states have.