Questions about electors in presidential elections

[Seymour Flops]

I'm asking because I am on the fence about the legitimacy of the 2020 election.

Please answer if you know - and can provide a link to prove - the answer to any of them. Answers with no link will be ignored as likely guesses and/or "I've heards."

1) Who sends the electors to the congress? Are they told directly, or do they just follow the announcements made by whatever state official? Who tells them, "You are it. Go to Washington and cast those electoral votes for __________."

2) Are they actually sent physically? Are the votes delivered by messenger, or do the electors physically go to DC. Were they in the Capital on Jan 6th, or did they cast their votes at an earlier date?

3) The "alternative electors," as Team Trump called them, or the "fake electors" as Team Biden called them . . . who sent them, and how were they notified?

4) Did the alternative/fake electors actually go to Washington, were they on standby, did they make it into the Capital building?

5) Do any later amendments weaken in any way the power of the legislatures to determine the manner of elections? Do they weaken it in any way that is germane to the issue of the 2020 electors?

Hoping for mature discussion, but if it gets out of hand, I'll just enjoy the show.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm asking because I am on the fence about the legitimacy of the 2020 election.

Please answer if you know - and can provide a link to prove - the answer to any of them. Answers with no link will be ignored as likely guesses and/or "I've heards."

1) Who sends the electors to the congress? Are they told directly, or do they just follow the announcements made by whatever state official? Who tells them, "You are it. Go to Washington and cast those electoral votes for __________."

2) Are they actually sent physically? Are the votes delivered by messenger, or do the electors physically go to DC. Were they in the Capital on Jan 6th, or did they cast their votes at an earlier date?

3) The "alternative electors," as Team Trump called them, or the "fake electors" as Team Biden called them . . . who sent them, and how were they notified?

4) Did the alternative/fake electors actually go to Washington, were they on standby, did they make it into the Capital building?

5) Do any later amendments weaken in any way the power of the legislatures to determine the manner of elections? Do they weaken it in any way that is germane to the issue of the 2020 electors?

Hoping for mature discussion, but if it gets out of hand, I'll just enjoy the show.

Why do you think the electors matter in terms of electoral fraud?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Above reference is the United States Constitution:

#1 The State.

#2 No. The valid electors per the method defined by the State Legislature. They vote in the state capital on the date define by Congress per United States Code, then the results are certified by the Governor and transmitted to Congress.

#3 There is no such thing as "alternative electors", valid electors are certified and sent from the States Executive Authority.

#4 Electors don't got to Washington, D.C.

#5 No, the Constitution provides that CONGRESS sets the dates, State Legislatures set the method that must be used by that date. Once they date is passed State Legislatures have no authority to retroactively change the results.

Glad to help.

WW

 

[Seymour Flops]

View attachment 669977

View attachment 669980

Above reference is the United States Constitution:

Thanks for those answers. Some clarifications, please:

#1 The State.

Ok, sure. colloquially, the state does it, just like the state makes license plates. But in reality, a state is an inanimate land area with artificially drawn borders. Who specifically tells the chosen electors that they have been chosen? The governor, the secretary of state, or who?

#2 No. The valid electors per the method defined by the State Legislature. They vote in the state capital on the date define by Congress per United States Code, then the results are certified by the Governor and transmitted to Congress.

Ok, that's exactly the kind of answers I'm looking for. Why is it the governor? Is that specified in the constitution, or is it just that every state does it that way?

#3 There is no such thing as "alternative electors", valid electors are certified and sent from the States Executive Authority.

Same question as above. The constitution specifies that the legislatures chuse the manner of selecting electors. From the quote you posted:

I take that last to mean that the electors send their electoral votes directly to congress, not to the governor to be then sent to congress. That seems to give the electors themselves the final say.

#4 Electors don't got to Washington, D.C.

Yes, you provided the exact reference for that.

#5 No, the Constitution provides that CONGRESS sets the dates, State Legislatures set the method that must be used by that date. Once they date is passed State Legislatures have no authority to retroactively change the results.

Glad to help.

WW

That was very helpful, and I thank you.

I'll risk pushing my luck: Sorry, I was a little vague about #5. I was thinking of the post-civil war amendments. If legislatures use a manner of appointing electors that violates the XIV or XV amendments, would that render their electors invalid?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Why do you think the electors matter in terms of electoral fraud?

Because, in my opinion, if the electors were clearly appointed in the manner set by the legislatures, then any claim of electoral fraud is automatically invalid.

If electors were clearly not appointed in the manner set by the legislatures, then a claim of electoral fraud is likely valid.

If there is doubt about whether electors were appointed in the manner set by the legislatures, then - in my opinion - only the state legislatures would have any standing to challenge them. If no state legislature challenged its own state's electors, then the electoral results were valid, regardless of how many shenanigans preceded the selection of the electors.

In other words, if the third option is true, as I believe that it is, the election of Joe Biden was valid, no matter how much alleged cheating and rule changing their was in the vote-casting process.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Thanks for those answers. Some clarifications, please:

Ok, sure. colloquially, the state does it, just like the state makes license plates. But in reality, a state is an inanimate land area with artificially drawn borders. Who specifically tells the chosen electors that they have been chosen? The governor, the secretary of state, or who?

Ok, that's exactly the kind of answers I'm looking for. Why is it the governor? Is that specified in the constitution, or is it just that every state does it that way?

Same question as above. The constitution specifies that the legislatures chuse the manner of selecting electors. From the quote you posted:

View attachment 669986
I take that last to mean that the electors send their electoral votes directly to congress, not to the governor to be then sent to congress. That seems to give the electors themselves the final say.

Yes, you provided the exact reference for that.

That was very helpful, and I thank you.

I'll risk pushing my luck: Sorry, I was a little vague about #5. I was thinking of the post-civil war amendments. If legislatures use a manner of appointing electors that violates the XIV or XV amendments, would that render their electors invalid?

#1 You would need to review each States Constitution and the laws passed by that State. Probably some variation, but the EC electors meet in the capital of the State and then certified for transmission by a State Executive (which is probably the Governor in some States, maybe the Secretary of State in others.)

#2 Yes the Constitution defines that the State Legislature choose the method of selecting the electors, you will notice thought that it doesn't mention the certification and transmission. When in doubt, 3 USC 15 defines that the vote submitted and certified by the States Executive Authority is the one to be counted. Which is why there is no such thing as an "alternative slate of electors".

#3 No, the electors don't send their votes directly to Congress. They cast their votes, they are duly noted and signed, then the States Executive Authority is responsible for transmission. See 3 USC 6 for EC elector redentials and for transmission of the certified vote to the National Archivist and Congress.

#4 State Legislatures can choose any method they wish for choosing EC Electors by the specified date. They can use a general election, they can directly appoint them, they could have a round robin of rock-paper-scissors. The 14th and 15 Amendments apply **ONLY** if the legislature decides to have a general vote during which they cannot discriminate. If they choose another voting method, then they don't apply. However the 14th and 15th Amendment would **STILL** apply to other local, state, and elections for federal office.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Because, in my opinion, if the electors were clearly appointed in the manner set by the legislatures, then any claim of electoral fraud is automatically invalid.

If electors were clearly not appointed in the manner set by the legislatures, then a claim of electoral fraud is likely valid.

If there is doubt about whether electors were appointed in the manner set by the legislatures, then - in my opinion - only the state legislatures would have any standing to challenge them. If no state legislature challenged its own state's electors, then the electoral results were valid, regardless of how many shenanigans preceded the selection of the electors.

In other words, if the third option is true, as I believe that it is, the election of Joe Biden was valid, no matter how much alleged cheating and rule changing their was in the vote-casting process.

Once the state certifies they election and the State Executive Authority transmits the results, there is no method of "invalidating" the election after the fact.

WW

 

[Seymour Flops]

#1 You would need to review each States Constitution and the laws passed by that State. Probably some variation, but the EC electors meet in the capital of the State and then certified for transmission by a State Executive (which is probably the Governor in some States, maybe the Secretary of State in others.)

#2 Yes the Constitution defines that the State Legislature choose the method of selecting the electors, you will notice thought that it doesn't mention the certification and transmission. When in doubt, 3 USC 15 defines that the vote submitted and certified by the States Executive Authority is the one to be counted. Which is why there is no such thing as an "alternative slate of electors".

#3 No, the electors don't send their votes directly to Congress. They cast their votes, they are duly noted and signed, then the States Executive Authority is responsible for transmission. See 3 USC 6 for EC elector redentials and for transmission of the certified vote to the National Archivist and Congress.

#4 State Legislatures can choose any method they wish for choosing EC Electors by the specified date. They can use a general election, they can directly appoint them, they could have a round robin of rock-paper-scissors. The 14th and 15 Amendments apply **ONLY** if the legislature decides to have a general vote during which they cannot discriminate. If they choose another voting method, then they don't apply. However the 14th and 15th Amendment would **STILL** apply to other local, state, and elections for federal office.

WW

Once the state certifies they election and the State Executive Authority transmits the results, there is no method of "invalidating" the election after the fact.

WW

Okay! Wow!

Thanks for sharing all of that knowledge with me. You have answered all my questions and more.

I have no idea what your political opinions are, but if you are this smart, my assumption would be that they align perfectly with mine.

Just kidding, I'll check some of your posts out, but even if we agree on nothing, I appreciate your informing me.

Seymour

 

[frigidweirdo]

Because, in my opinion, if the electors were clearly appointed in the manner set by the legislatures, then any claim of electoral fraud is automatically invalid.

If electors were clearly not appointed in the manner set by the legislatures, then a claim of electoral fraud is likely valid.

If there is doubt about whether electors were appointed in the manner set by the legislatures, then - in my opinion - only the state legislatures would have any standing to challenge them. If no state legislature challenged its own state's electors, then the electoral results were valid, regardless of how many shenanigans preceded the selection of the electors.

In other words, if the third option is true, as I believe that it is, the election of Joe Biden was valid, no matter how much alleged cheating and rule changing their was in the vote-casting process.

Not really.
The whole "fraud" thing is that people were voting twice or more. That because of mail in voting, because of people being able to move around and register multiple times, people were able to change the votes.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Not really.
The whole "fraud" thing is that people were voting twice or more. That because of mail in voting, because of people being able to move around and register multiple times, people were able to change the votes.

So, did they do that?

Does it matter if they did?

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, did they do that?

Does it matter if they did?

Did they? It's possible a few people did it.

What's been suggested is huge systematic abuse, which is less likely, but still doable. In the past Presidential elections were abused much more.

Does it matter? Not really. Mostly because the US system of electing is so backwards and so lacking in democracy it's ridiculous.

California had the largest number of people vote for Trump in any state and those voters were totally ignored. The reality is with a system like Proportional Representation you'd never get only two parties winning ALL THE SEATS.

The US is like a shared dictatorship.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Did they? It's possible a few people did it.

Much more possible by the changes that the Democratic Judges and executives made to the election rules. That is what made this election unique among all past elections in which multiple voting was possible, and almost certainly happened.

What's been suggested is huge systematic abuse, which is less likely, but still doable. In the past Presidential elections were abused much more.

I could agree with that, if you provided some specific evidence.

Does it matter? Not really. Mostly because the US system of electing is so backwards and so lacking in democracy it's ridiculous.

California had the largest number of people vote for Trump in any state and those voters were totally ignored. The reality is with a system like Proportional Representation you'd never get only two parties winning ALL THE SEATS.

The US is like a shared dictatorship.

Well, yes, that is a case you could make.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Much more possible by the changes that the Democratic Judges and executives made to the election rules. That is what made this election unique among all past elections in which multiple voting was possible, and almost certainly happened.

I could agree with that, if you provided some specific evidence.

Well, yes, that is a case you could make.

Multiple voting happens because the US is very relaxed about such things. There are no ID cards. Most countries, bar the UK and US have compulsory ID cards. Many countries demand you tell them where you're living. Those with voting will force you to register to vote every time.

It's not "Democratic Judges" at all, and you say this without a single piece of evidence to back you up. It's the American way, always has been.

I'm not going to provide evidence for past electoral abuse because I don't think it's a point that needs to be proven for this debate.

The simple fact is I know about Proportional Representation, I've spoken about it a lot on here, and most people, 99.9% of people dismiss it before they even know what it is. That's just what it's like for most voters.

They prefer to be screwed over, but be ignorant of it, rather than find a better way and promote it. People are just lazy. They think their guns are going to save them, so why change anything at all?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Multiple voting happens because the US is very relaxed about such things. There are no ID cards. Most countries, bar the UK and US have compulsory ID cards. Many countries demand you tell them where you're living. Those with voting will force you to register to vote every time.

Yes, and anyone who suggests any of that for the U.S. is called a racist. Which would be amusing, if so many judges and lawmakers did not fall for it.

It's not "Democratic Judges" at all, and you say this without a single piece of evidence to back you up. It's the American way, always has been.

I'm not going to provide evidence for past electoral abuse because I don't think it's a point that needs to be proven for this debate.

Then your point that "it always happens," falls flat.

The simple fact is I know about Proportional Representation, I've spoken about it a lot on here, and most people, 99.9% of people dismiss it before they even know what it is. That's just what it's like for most voters.

They prefer to be screwed over, but be ignorant of it, rather than find a better way and promote it. People are just lazy. They think their guns are going to save them, so why change anything at all?

Yes, that sounds like a great thread. I am open to proportional representation also, and maybe even a parliamentary system. That's not what I'm talking about here.

 

[postman]

Not really.
The whole "fraud" thing is that people were voting twice or more. That because of mail in voting, because of people being able to move around and register multiple times, people were able to change the votes.

Actual cases of that happening were less than a dozen. They were caught, convicted and prosecuted for such things as voting a dead relatives ballot.
Ironically most of such voter fraud, were people who voted for (or in most cases attempted to vote for) Trump.

The bottom line is, the number of instances would in no way effect the election outcome.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, and anyone who suggests any of that for the U.S. is called a racist. Which would be amusing, if so many judges and lawmakers did not fall for it.

Then your point that "it always happens," falls flat.

Yes, that sounds like a great thread. I am open to proportional representation also, and maybe even a parliamentary system. That's not what I'm talking about here.

Then what are you talking about? You want to know about corruption in elections. It's nothing to do with electors. Beyond that.... nothing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actual cases of that happening were less than a dozen. They were caught, convicted and prosecuted for such things as voting a dead relatives ballot.
Ironically most of such voter fraud, were people who voted for (or in most cases attempted to vote for) Trump.

The bottom line is, the number of instances would in no way effect the election outcome.

Yes, the reality is that the "election fraud" actually comes from the bad system that does not take into account what the people want. Doesn't let them vote for who they want. Gives them two bad viable choices.

 

[postman]

Yes, the reality is that the "election fraud" actually comes from the bad system that does not take into account what the people want. Doesn't let them vote for who they want. Gives them two bad viable choices.

States get to decide how their elections are run. So that's a state by state issue. Such as some states allow write-in votes, while others don't. Some states give automatic ballot access to the major parties, while others make every party, big or small, have to submit a number of valid signed petitions to qualify.

 

[frigidweirdo]

States get to decide how their elections are run. So that's a state by state issue. Such as some states allow write-in votes, while others don't. Some states give automatic ballot access to the major parties, while others make every party, big or small, have to submit a number of valid signed petitions to qualify.

Yes, but no state is actually democratic when it comes to Presidential elections.

 

[Care4all]

Because, in my opinion, if the electors were clearly appointed in the manner set by the legislatures, then any claim of electoral fraud is automatically invalid.

If electors were clearly not appointed in the manner set by the legislatures, then a claim of electoral fraud is likely valid.

If there is doubt about whether electors were appointed in the manner set by the legislatures, then - in my opinion - only the state legislatures would have any standing to challenge them. If no state legislature challenged its own state's electors, then the electoral results were valid, regardless of how many shenanigans preceded the selection of the electors.

In other words, if the third option is true, as I believe that it is, the election of Joe Biden was valid, no matter how much alleged cheating and rule changing their was in the vote-casting process.

The manner electors are selected is in each state's election law, is written by the legislators.

The states certify elections and electors in the manner their state law directs and mandates.

The second set of electors, were fraudulent..... And not picked in the manner that was in legislation prior to the election.

People will likely serve time, over this fraudulent scheme.