Question; If Democrats Controled the Remaining Six Swing State Legislatures....

[JimBowie1958]

...do you think that they would vote for a slate of Democrat EC electors regardless of the recount outcomes with all this controversy and questionable votes?

And please do the poll!

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

...do you think that they would vote for a slate of Democrat EC electors regardless of the recount outcomes with all this controversy and questionable votes?

The electors in these states will vote for whomever won the popular vote in their state. All votes will be canvassed and verified. Just like what happens every election year.

 

[ReinyDays]

Isn't it the Sec. of State that certifies the election? ... that's due by Dec 8th ... time for the courts to intervene ... Republicans should have the whole "observer" controversy straight by the start of the recount ...

What makes these ideas thin is that this would require only Democrats working in the election offices of profoundly Republican States ... AZ and GA ... the other states are thick with Republicans ... just make sure your people are "over-the-shoulder" during the second count ...

 

[JoeB131]

...do you think that they would vote for a slate of Democrat EC electors regardless of the recount outcomes with all this controversy and questionable votes?

And please do the poll!

Legislatures wouldn't take it on themselves to overturn the will of the voters. It hasn't been done since the early 1800s.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I think the states pretty much have to follow the rules for this election, that were in place at the time of this election. They are all winner-take-all states, so whichever candidate wins the populate vote in each state, that state has to send all electors who are pledged to support that candidate. They could change the rules for how electors are chosen, but I think any such change would have to wait for the next election to take effect.

I suppose, if anything they could intentionally choose electors who have publicly pledged to support one candidate, but who have secretly agreed to support a different candidate—an intentional, organized form of the “faithless elector” issue.

 

[JoeB131]

I think the states pretty much have to follow the rules for this election, that were in place at the time of this election. They are all winner-take-all states, so whichever candidate wins the populate vote in each state, that state has to send all electors who are pledged to support that candidate. They could change the rules for how electors are chosen, but I think any such change would have to wait for the next election to take effect.

I suppose, if anything they could intentionally choose electors who have publicly pledged to support one candidate, but who have secretly agreed to support a different candidate—an intentional, organized form of the “faithless elector” issue.

Electors have been selected by the campaigns a long time ago, Mormon Bob.

They are loyal.

More to the point, recent SCOTUS rulings have made "faithless electors" impossible.

 

[MarcATL]

The electors in these states will vote for whomever won the popular vote in their state. All votes will be canvassed and verified. Just like what happens every election year.

That's the long and short of it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I think the states pretty much have to follow the rules for this election, that were in place at the time of this election. They are all winner-take-all states, so whichever candidate wins the populate vote in each state, that state has to send all electors who are pledged to support that candidate. They could change the rules for how electors are chosen, but I think any such change would have to wait for the next election to take effect.

I suppose, if anything they could intentionally choose electors who have publicly pledged to support one candidate, but who have secretly agreed to support a different candidate—an intentional, organized form of the “faithless elector” issue.

The rules are set by the Constitution which states that the Legislatures of the states can do whatever the hell they want to.

A number of states used to not determine their EC delegation by public vote at all and was a legislative choice all along.

The Republican state legislatures do not have the balls to do it, I think, but they *can* legally and Constitutionally send in a pro-Trump EC delegation no matter how the state votes.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The rules are set by the Constitution which states that the Legislatures of the states can do whatever the hell they want to.

A number of states used to not determine their EC delegation by public vote at all and was a legislative choice all along.

The Republican state legislatures do not have the balls to do it, I think, but they *can* legally and Constitutionally send in a pro-Trump EC delegation no matter how the state votes.

The Constitution pretty much leaves it entirely to the states to determine how the Electors are chosen. Although the Constitution does not explicitly address this point, I have to think that somehow, it would be deemed invalid, and thrown out in some court challenge, if any state tried to change the rules, after the vote was taken, to choose the Electors in a manner differently than what was represented to the voters at the time that they voted. It's a broader principle that certainly applies in other contexts, about not being allowed to change the terms of an agreement after one party has already accepted, and acted in accordance with the previously-agreed terms.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The rules are set by the Constitution which states that the Legislatures of the states can do whatever the hell they want to.

A number of states used to not determine their EC delegation by public vote at all and was a legislative choice all along.

The Republican state legislatures do not have the balls to do it, I think, but they *can* legally and Constitutionally send in a pro-Trump EC delegation no matter how the state votes.

The Constitution pretty much leaves it entirely to the states to determine how the Electors are chosen. Although the Constitution does not explicitly address this point, I have to think that somehow, it would be deemed invalid, and thrown out in some court challenge, if any state tried to change the rules, after the vote was taken, to choose the Electors in a manner differently than what was represented to the voters at the time that they voted. It's a broader principle that certainly applies in other contexts, about not being allowed to change the terms of an agreement after one party has already accepted, and acted in accordance with the previously-agreed terms.

The rules are for the elections, not the selection of delegates, which is determined each time the legislatures put the slate of delegates together, and they dont have to follow the election.

I think it is a m oot point though, since Trump is going to win the recounts in AZ, GA and WI at minimum, and probably PA and MI as well.

 

[JoeB131]

The rules are set by the Constitution which states that the Legislatures of the states can do whatever the hell they want to.

A number of states used to not determine their EC delegation by public vote at all and was a legislative choice all along.

The Republican state legislatures do not have the balls to do it, I think, but they *can* legally and Constitutionally send in a pro-Trump EC delegation no matter how the state votes.

They'd be facing major revolts if they did.

Look, buddy, deal with it, you lost. By five million votes nationally. It was bad enough when you guys tried to claim an 80K vote win three states justified ignoring the will of the people, but now you want to invalidate votes in states you clearly LOST>

For THIS guy? Most Republicans are secretly happy he's gone.