US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)

Biden

14 (66.7%)

Trump

7 (33.3%)

Total Members Voted: 21

Voting closed: November 02, 2020, 06:25:59 pm

[faberryman]

With Snowden, I would disagree.

So there are people who would switch their vote from Biden to Trump if Trump pardoned Snowden? That must be quite the fan club.

[Alan Klein]

I am not watching the Democratic convention. Just to be fair, I am also not planning on watching the Republican convention. At this point, barring Biden having a stroke at one of the debates (for those who don't think he already has had one), no one could possibly be on the fence about who they are going to vote for. I wish we could advance the date we vote to something like yesterday. We are going to need all the time we can get before January 20, 2021 to resolve the lawsuits. Besides, USPS hasn't picked up all of the street letter boxes yet so mailing a ballot is still a possibility.

For all of you constitutional scholars out there, if all the lawsuits are not resolved by inauguration day, does the House elect an interim president? Am I reading the 20th Amendment correctly? Links to knowledgeable discussions (i.e., not CNN or Fox or any nut job lawyer) would be a help.

Actually, that's a great question.  Off the top of my head, presidents are elected by the electoral college.  The president needs a majority vote - more than 50%. (That's why we only have two main parties.  If we ran like a parliament with let's say  6 parties, there often would be no majority. That's why it doesn't pay to start a third party.)  So as long as the electoral college meets and votes, the fact there are lawsuits going on may not necessarily mean anything.  If a lawsuit occured in a state, like what's happened in Florida in 2000, and let's say the Florida electors never showed up in Washington DC to vote, as long as there are more than 50% of the total electors  voting for the president, it wouldn;t go to the Congress to decide.  Of course, Floridians would lose their vote.  Their representation in the presidential election would be lost.  That was one of the reasons the Supreme Court refused to allow a re-count of the Florida vote that was requested.  It was claimed there was not enough time to do it before the electors had to vote.  However,  the Supreme COurt let the existing vote count in Florida and the electors went to Washington and Bush won. 

I can't imaging the SUpreme COurt holding up an election if there are lawsuits.  They'd tell the states to get them settled and sent their electors to Washington to vote.  Let's say there are 35 lawsuits going on in 28 states.  There's no way the Supreme Court can rule on each of them with hearing, depositions, etc.  There's no time.  It's up to each state government and each Secretary of State to certify voting results.  If they want their states votes to count, they better get them settled in time.

OF course, let's say there is an electoral vote.  If no one get 50%+, then Congress decides.  I don't know what happens if let's say a war holds up the vote.  But like I said, they can call me for advice at that time. 

[Alan Klein]

Gee, I don’t know how you know that, but mostly I don’t know why it would have any relevance to anything.

Obama pardoned the gay guy to show he's woke.

[faberryman]

Obama pardoned the gay guy to show he's woke.

Chelsea Manning is not gay. She is trans. Get with it, Alan. It is 2020.

[Alan Klein]

Chelsea Manning is not gay. She is trans. Get with it, Alan. It is 2020.

How come you know the difference?   

[faberryman]

How come you know the difference?   

I don't know. I just pick this stuff up when I am out in the world. Either that or it was a question on Jeopardy.

[BernardLanguillier]

All things considered, wouldn’t it be better to send tens of thousands of UN observers to ensure that the US elections are held normally?

- Trump has already officially announced he would not respect the outcome of the elections if he lost
- Considering his inability to face any truth not aligned with his rethorics (the recent interview where he keeps saying the the US has one of the lowest dearh rates of covid19 is mindboggling - akin to a 5 years old sticking to the opinion the 2+2=5) he will lie about whatever happens - we know this with 100% certainty
- he is trying to prevent millions of valid electors from voting

We are exactly in the circumstances where past critical elections were put under neutral control by UN observers.

Cheers,
Bernard

[TechTalk]

let's say the Florida electors never showed up in Washington DC to vote,

Electors don't vote in Washington, DC. They meet and cast their votes in their respective state capitals and send the results to Congress. By law, the results are transmitted to Congress by registered mail.

as long as there are more than 50% of the total electors  voting for the president, it wouldn;t go to the Congress to decide.  Of course, Floridians would lose their vote.  Their representation in the presidential election would be lost.

There is no such provision for just skipping a state. No state loses their electoral votes under any circumstance. Every state is required to transmit the vote of their electors. There is a provision for a state delay in choosing electors. "Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct."

[TechTalk]

All things considered, wouldn’t it be better to send tens of thousands of UN observers to ensure that the US elections are held normally?

- Trump has already officially announced he would not respect the outcome of the elections if he lost
- Considering his inability to face any truth not aligned with his rethorics (the recent interview where he keeps saying the the US has one of the lowest dearh rates of covid19 is mindboggling - akin to a 5 years old sticking to the opinion the 2+2=5) he will lie about whatever happens - we know this with 100% certainty
- he is trying to prevent millions of valid electors from voting

We are exactly in the circumstances where past critical elections were put under neutral control by UN observers.

Cheers,
Bernard

Yesterday at a rally in Wisconsin Trump said...

"The only way we're going to lose this election is if the election is rigged. Remember that. It’s the only way we’re going to lose this election, so we have to be very careful.”

“The only way they’re going to win is that way. And we can’t let that happen.”

[PeterAit]

 I don't know what happens if let's say a war holds up the vote.  But like I said, they can call me for advice at that time.

The constitution is perfectly clear. The prez and VP officially leave office at noon on Jan 20th. If a new prez/VP have not been elected -- either the incumbent or the challenger -- they still have to leave office and they no longer have any authority over squat. So guess what--the speaker becomes president. AKA Pelosi. Wouldn't that be a great thumb-in-the-eye for the Orange Oaf??!!

[Alan Klein]

Electors don't vote in Washington, DC. They meet and cast their votes in their respective state capitals and send the results to Congress. By law, the results are transmitted to Congress by registered mail.

There is no such provision for just skipping a state. No state loses their electoral votes under any circumstance. Every state is required to transmit the vote of their electors. There is a provision for a state delay in choosing electors. "Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct."

Thanks for clarifying they vote by mail.  But that doesn't change my point. If the Electors fail to get their vote to Washington in time, their vote is lost. It Florida had not straightened out the chad mess, and didn't decide their electors in time to mail their state's presidential selection to Washington, Florida would not have been included in the electoral vote for president.  Floridians who voted would have been disenfranchised.  So the Supreme Court told Florida's government and their courts to get off their butts, make a decision who won their state, and send their electoral selection to Washington without delay.

[Alan Klein]

Yesterday at a rally in Wisconsin Trump said...

"The only way we're going to lose this election is if the election is rigged. Remember that. It’s the only way we’re going to lose this election, so we have to be very careful.”

“The only way they’re going to win is that way. And we can’t let that happen.”

What's wrong with that?  He's calling for honest elections and that the government should do everything to insure we have them.

[TechTalk]

Thanks for clarifying they vote by mail.  But that doesn't change my point. If the Electors fail to get their vote to Washington in time, their vote is lost. It Florida had not straightened out the chad mess, and didn't decide their electors in time to mail their state's presidential selection to Washington, Florida would not have been included in the electoral vote for president.  Floridians who voted would have been disenfranchised.  So the Supreme Court told Florida's government and their courts to get off their butts, make a decision who won their state, and send their electoral selection to Washington without delay.

That is completely wrong.

[Alan Klein]

The constitution is perfectly clear. The prez and VP officially leave office at noon on Jan 20th. If a new prez/VP have not been elected -- either the incumbent or the challenger -- they still have to leave office and they no longer have any authority over squat. So guess what--the speaker becomes president. AKA Pelosi. ...

So, even if everyone knows who the new president is, because the electors never got the mail to Washington to vote for the person who won the electoral vote, the Speaker takes over??

[Alan Klein]

That is completely wrong.

How?

[Craig Lamson]

Electors don't vote in Washington, DC. They meet and cast their votes in their respective state capitals and send the results to Congress. By law, the results are transmitted to Congress by registered mail.

There is no such provision for just skipping a state. No state loses their electoral votes under any circumstance. Every state is required to transmit the vote of their electors. There is a provision for a state delay in choosing electors. "Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct."

Incorrect.  In a case for example where the results of a States election count is in dispute and the Govenor submits a slate of electors for one party and the Congress of that state votes to send a different slate of electors for the other candidate, it could transpire that both sets of disputed electors cancel each other out and the States EC votes will not be counted.  Its a long shot to be sure it it is well within the possible outcomes. 

https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2719&context=luclj

[MattBurt]

What's wrong with that?  He's calling for honest elections and that the government should do everything to insure we have them.

The way he is calling for "honest elections" is the problem. Really he is calling for his own victory at all costs and nothing else. According to this, if he doesn't win then by default it was not an honest election. Even if it was. Would you have been ok with Obama saying that? Implying that if he did not win and get reelected then the election is invalid? That's what third world dictators do. Even as someone who supported Obama I would have been taken aback at such an undemocratic statement from a sitting president.

[Craig Lamson]

The constitution is perfectly clear. The prez and VP officially leave office at noon on Jan 20th. If a new prez/VP have not been elected -- either the incumbent or the challenger -- they still have to leave office and they no longer have any authority over squat. So guess what--the speaker becomes president. AKA Pelosi. Wouldn't that be a great thumb-in-the-eye for the Orange Oaf??!!

Pelosi's term expires on Jan 3 and if she is not re-elected or voted in as Speaker she would not be President.

[TechTalk]

Incorrect.  In a case for example where the results of a States election count is in dispute and the Govenor submits a slate of electors for one party and the Congress of that state votes to send a different slate of electors for the other candidate, it could transpire that both sets of disputed electors cancel each other out and the States EC votes will not be counted.  Its a long shot to be sure it it is well within the possible outcomes. 

https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2719&context=luclj

3 USC §5 Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors

If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.

3 USC §15. Counting electoral votes in Congress
Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o'clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.

[TechTalk]

How?

The how your statement is wrong is because you're just winging it rather than checking what the law actually says.

For the why see above or read thru Title 3 United States Code.

https://uscode.house.gov/Title 3