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

[Craig Lamson]

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.

You didn’t read the link I provided did you?

Wanna try again?

[hogloff]

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

Who would think the all might USA would be better served with UN observers during the voting process. Isn't this relegated to nations which are ruled by corrupt leaders...oh wait...

[TechTalk]

You didn’t read the link I provided did you?

Wanna try again?

I did. But I'll go with the actual federal law.

[Craig Lamson]

I did. But I'll go with the actual federal law.

Of course you assume the law as written is upheld.  And that of course is the entire point of the article.  Given the current political climate there exists the possibility the law gets challenged.  In case you missed it, courts exist to deal with challenges to law. 

Your pals the Dems have already “war gamed” this election.  I surely don’t think the law as written is going to stand in the way of actions from either party after the “votes” have been counted.  It’s not impossible for the EC votes of a State to be discarded.  I guess that would be a “circumstance”.

[Craig Lamson]

Who would think the all might USA would be better served with UN observers during the voting process. Isn't this relegated to nations which are ruled by corrupt leaders...oh wait...

Yea that’s gonna fly in the USA...

[TechTalk]

It’s not impossible for the EC votes of a State to be discarded.

3 USC §3 "The number of electors shall be equal to the number of Senators and Representatives to which the several States are by law entitled"

Currently, that means that the number of electors shall be 538. 3 USC §15 provides a mechanism to insure that number and that all states are represented in the election of the President as provided for in the Constitution.

You actually believe that it is legal and constitutional for the electoral "votes of a State to be discarded"? Well, anything can be argued or questioned. There are plenty of flat earth debates on YouTube.

[Craig Lamson]

3 USC §3 "The number of electors shall be equal to the number of Senators and Representatives to which the several States are by law entitled"

Currently, that means that the number of electors shall be 538. 3 USC §15 provides a mechanism to insure that number and that all states are represented in the election of the President as provided for in the Constitution.

You actually believe that it is legal and constitutional for the electoral "votes of a State to be discarded"? Well, anything can be argued or questioned. There are plenty of flat earth debates on YouTube.

Dude you screwed up.  Just deal with it.  You said  “under no circumstance”. I gave you one, long shot that it is.  What’s the old saying. Laws are made to be broken.  “ Legal” will be what some Judge or Judges say it is on any given day.  USC be damned. 

[hogloff]

Yea that’s gonna fly in the USA...

Might not fly...but maybe it should. The mighty democracy becoming corrupt right before our eyes.

[TechTalk]

Dude you screwed up.  Just deal with it.  You said  “under no circumstance”. I gave you one, long shot that it is.  What’s the old saying. Laws are made to be broken.  “ Legal” will be what some Judge or Judges say it is on any given day.  USC be damned.

Given that the US Constitution provides for the novel Presidential election system that we have in order to insure that each individual State has their State's interests represented in selecting a President; good luck making your case.

It's very likely that a case such as that would be dismissed by the Court as non-justiciable based on the political question doctrine and separation of powers and send it back to Congress to decide for themselves.

You can believe whatever you choose. I think I'll just watch a flat earth debate on YouTube for fun instead.

[Craig Lamson]

Given that the US Constitution provides for the novel Presidential election system that we have in order to insure that each individual State has their State's interests represented in selecting a President; good luck making your case.

It's very likely that a case such as that would be dismissed by the Court as non-justiciable based on the political question doctrine and separation of powers and send it back to Congress to decide for themselves.

You can believe whatever you choose. I think I'll just watch a flat earth debate on YouTube for fun instead.

I see your gums are flapping but nothing that helps you is coming out...

You too can believe the case would be dismissed, but this is America, and laws are changed that no one would ever believe possible.  Who would have imagined the 9th overturning the Calif. 10 round magazine ban.

Enjoy your video.  You might learn something...

[TechTalk]

I see your gums are flapping but nothing that helps you is coming out...

I'm not in need of any help, but thanks. Have a good evening.

[Alan Klein]

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.

Oh puleese. Trump isn't a dictator.  You've bought into the political hyperbole from his enemies.  The fact is it was Hillary Clinton who said the election was not fair, who tried to change Trump's elector's votes, and was a general nuisance after the election blaming everyone for her loss.  She's still complaining she wuz robbed. 

[Alan Klein]

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

I'll take your word for it.  But my offer is still open if they want me to pick the winner for them. 

[MattBurt]

Oh puleese. Trump isn't a dictator.  You've bought into the political hyperbole from his enemies.  The fact is it was Hillary Clinton who said the election was not fair, who tried to change Trump's elector's votes, and was a general nuisance after the election blaming everyone for her loss.  She's still complaining she wuz robbed. 

No he's just acting like one.
Ok yeah, it's Hillary's fault. All your compelling evidence has changed my mind.

[Alan Klein]

Who would think the all might USA would be better served with UN observers during the voting process. Isn't this relegated to nations which are ruled by corrupt leaders...oh wait...

Each of the 50 states run their elections. Local officials run and monitor the voting locations with State oversight.  The Federal government is not involved, It has no authority to assign UN observers even if it wanted too.  The states would challenge the Feds if they tried.  Of course who knows what the Supreme Court would do. They're so feckless and haven't read the Constitution since Government 101.

[Alan Klein]

Might not fly...but maybe it should. The mighty democracy becoming corrupt right before our eyes.

The States run the elections.  If they're corrupt like what happened here in New Jersey a few weeks ago with the phony mail-in ballots, it's on the state, not the Federal government.  Voting is managed by the states.  They count the votes not Trump.

[Alan Klein]

No he's just acting like one.
Ok yeah, it's Hillary's fault. All your compelling evidence has changed my mind.

That makes one.  The first time I ever changed anyone's mind in the forums. 

[JoeKitchen]

Tell that to Senator Burr (R-NC) and chair of the committee that issued the report.  Don't recklessly post answers that you know nothing about.

Some of the Senators gave a presser after issuing this, and one stated it was proven there was no collusion.  It's over! 

The only thing we need to worry about right now insofar as collusion is whether Biden is working with China?   I mean we know his son is working with China and got a free ride there on Air Force 2.  But is Joe?  Intelligence suggests China is working harder to get Biden elected then anything Russia did. 

[JoeKitchen]

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

No, but there are Bernie Bros who would just stay home. 

I think Biden has the other problem though, moderates staying home.  After people start seeing his policies, he is going to be hard to sell. 

[JoeKitchen]

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

The irony of this post is amazing. 

Bernard, you do realize that in the last weeks, the Democratic left were arguing that 2+2=5, because they could just change the deffinition of the elements. 

Woke Twitter users argue that "2+2=5" with no hint of irony at all

Anyway, no he did not say he would not respect the election results.  And no, he is not trying to prevent electors from voting.  (BTW, do you know what an elector is in USA politics?  It is not a citizen.)