James Clyburn defends federal takeover of elections: 'Cannot be left up to the states'

[M14 Shooter]

Not necessarily.

Not necessarily what?
Given the states do not have to hold an election to chose their electors, why do you think the states do not have the power to create election law that includes the ability of a legislature to overturn the results of an election?

Jesus, that would be about as in democratic as you can get

Presidential elections aren't democratic.

 

[Lesh]

Any State that has a certification can do that, or reject the slate of electors proposed by the voting totals. it's the point of certifying.

WTF are you talking about?

Again, link the part of the law you are bitching about, unless like most progressives you were just told to bitch about it without actually having read the law section in question.

That remains to be seen since it hasn't been attempted in modern times (if ever)

Do you support that?

Say NY or NJ were to go to the Republican in 2024. Would you support the Dem legislature sending Dem electors instead of the ones that would have gone according to the vote?

Of course not

 

[Lesh]

Any State that has a certification can do that, or reject the slate of electors proposed by the voting totals. it's the point of certifying.

Not necessarily what?
Given the states do not have to hold an election to chose their electors, why do you think the states do not have the power to create election law that includes the ability of a legislature to overturn the results of an election?

As per the SCOTUS in Chiafalo

In Chiafalo, however, the Supreme Court unanimously resolved that history had overtaken the Framers’ design. Nine justices agreed that even if the Framers had assumed that “electors” would be free to cast a vote however they chose, an emerging presumption of democratic control had displaced that original design. Whatever they originally expected, the court held, there was nothing in their words that constrained the power of the state to ensure that it was the choice of the people that would ultimately decide how the electors would vote. Elector discretion had been displaced by democracy. “Here,” as Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the closing line of her opinion, “[w]e the people rule.”

 

[martybegan]

That remains to be seen since it hasn't been attempted in modern times (if ever)

Do you support that?

Say NY or NJ were to go to the Republican in 2024. Would you support the Dem legislature sending Dem electors instead of the ones that would have gone according to the vote?

Of course not

If there were actual fraud found and the fraud turned the election to my favor?

Yes. I am for all VALID votes being counted.

What I don't support is the bullshit Interstate EC Pact, nor do I support expansive "vote however you want laws"

To me all voting should be in person unless a person is disabled or out of State. Voting is for 24 hours from 8PM the night before to 8 PM the night of, and Election day is a national holiday every year. All States should pass this, it shouldn't be forced by the feds unless if by amendment to the Constitution.

And if you want an absentee ballot you have to request it 1 month in advance so they can purge you from the local voter roll for that year.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That remains to be seen since it hasn't been attempted in modern times (if ever)

Up until the civil war, several states did not hold elections for President.
There's no constitutional reason they have to do it today.
And there's no constitutional reason they cannot create a law that allows the legislature to overturn an election.

Do you support that?

It's not a question of support, its a question of if the states has the power to do it - and they unquestionably do.

 

[martybegan]

As per the SCOTUS in Chiafalo

In Chiafalo, however, the Supreme Court unanimously resolved that history had overtaken the Framers’ design. Nine justices agreed that even if the Framers had assumed that “electors” would be free to cast a vote however they chose, an emerging presumption of democratic control had displaced that original design. Whatever they originally expected, the court held, there was nothing in their words that constrained the power of the state to ensure that it was the choice of the people that would ultimately decide how the electors would vote. Elector discretion had been displaced by democracy. “Here,” as Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the closing line of her opinion, “[w]e the people rule.”

But we don't rule as one person one vote for President as designed by the founders. The House represents the people, the Senate used to represent the State governments, and now the people by State, and the President represents a population weighted majority of the States.

Don't like it? Amend the constitution.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As per the SCOTUS in Chiafalo
In Chiafalo, however, the Supreme Court unanimously resolved that history had overtaken the Framers’ design. Nine justices agreed that even if the Framers had assumed that “electors” would be free to cast a vote however they chose, an emerging presumption of democratic control had displaced that original design. Whatever they originally expected, the court held, there was nothing in their words that constrained the power of the state to ensure that it was the choice of the people that would ultimately decide how the electors would vote. Elector discretion had been displaced by democracy. “Here,” as Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the closing line of her opinion, “[w]e the people rule.”

This refers to faitless electors, not the seating of electors - so, no.

And even then....
According to current election law.
The only reason there's any semblance of democracy in a election for President is the states allow their people to votre.
They do not have to, as there is no right to vote for electors.

 

[armadei]

If you federal supremacists didnt have ignorance, you would have nothing.
Guess what dumbfuck. The constitution doesnt provide a right to vote.

Oh snap, you let the secret out!

 

[Lesh]

This refers to faitless electors, not the seating of electors - so, no.

Wrong. Read it again.

SCOTUS ruled unanimously

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wrong. Read it again.
SCOTUS ruled unanimously

Yes. On the issue of faithless electors, and that the states had the power to require them to vote as the eelctorate chose.
This is -completely- irrelevant to the question as to what power the states have to specify the means of choosing their electors.
Feel free to try again.

 

[Lesh]

Yes. On the issue of faithless electors, and that the states had the power to require them to vote as the eelctorate chose.
This is -completely- irrelevant to the question as to what power the states have to specify the means of choosing their electors.
Feel free to try again.

Nope. Wrong again

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nope. Wrong again

There you go, lying to yourself again.
Your concession, accepted.