No, it would devolve to the state legislature, which ultimately is the body that appoints electors. All the disputed states except Nevada are Republican dominated state legislatures
Seems like it. Now, the PA General Assembly is not going to ignore the popular vote of the PA. PA since the very first election in 1788 has held a popular vote to choose electors. It’s part of their tradition. However, if the courts determine that the entire election (in PA) can’t be trusted, then there are provisions for a re-vote on state/federal level down ballot items, but the presidency is different than all those other elections. The presidential popular election exists at the pleasure of the state legislature. If the popular vote does not exist, there is no structure for revoting: the day is set by federal statute as the first Tuesday in November. Without a popular vote, it goes directly to the state legislature to vote on. AFAIK there is NO legal basis for what to do next besides some foundational constitutional texts, and all they say is “the state legislatures choose the electors.” So, a simple majority in both houses would seem to do the trick.
But couldn't the state leg decide they want to hold a revote as their method of deciding new electors? I don't see a legal/constitutional reason they can't.
Electors don't vote on party lines, the state legislature for each state tells the electors how to vote.
If they attempt to vote any other way, the state lege can step in and tell the Electoral College to dismiss that vote and elector
The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously upheld laws across the country that remove or punish rogue Electoral College delegates who refuse to cast their votes for the presidential candidate they were pledged to support.
The decision Monday was a loss for "faithless electors," who argued that under the Constitution they have discretion to decide which candidate to support.
Writing for the court, Justice Elena Kagan said Electoral College delegates have "no ground for reversing"
Kagan's opinion noted that the original Electoral College system created by the framers of the Constitution failed to anticipate the growth of political parties. By 1796, the first contested election after George Washington's retirement, the system exploded in disarray, with two consecutive Electoral College "fiascos."
That led to passage of the 12th Amendment in 1804, "facilitating the Electoral College ... as a mechanism not for deliberation but for party line voting," Kagan wrote.
Nothing in the Constitution prevents the states from "taking away presidential electors' voting discretion..."
Hopefully in person this time. If you are too scared of the flu to go vote, you don’t get your voice heard. Plain and simple. Tens of millions of people voted and hundreds of thousands protested, i mean rioted, over the summer.
They aren't even scared of the virus they're just doing it because they hate our POTUS, I'm already seeing people saying the virus isn't that serious on sports forums, when before the election they were shitting their pants and blaming Trump for everything.
Last time I saw my liberal uncle in Dallas he was hyperventilating about hand sanitizers and masks. Today he said he quarantined with covid, it’s nothing he’s just bored.
If they are so scared, the local government can rent the hazmat suit. It doesn't cost that much. The hazmat suits can be used for something else later for the local government or sell them on eBay.
It isn't an all or nothing deal. If the in person voting isn't demonstrated to be tainted, then it can remain. What would get purged would be what is demonstrably poisoned. SCOTUS would more likely take the route that disenfranchises the least amount of voters.
At most they will order the election invalid. Whole state revotes.
There’d be no revote, it’d go to the electoral delegates to vote based on party lines, which would advantage Trump.
No, it would devolve to the state legislature, which ultimately is the body that appoints electors. All the disputed states except Nevada are Republican dominated state legislatures
Seems like it. Now, the PA General Assembly is not going to ignore the popular vote of the PA. PA since the very first election in 1788 has held a popular vote to choose electors. It’s part of their tradition. However, if the courts determine that the entire election (in PA) can’t be trusted, then there are provisions for a re-vote on state/federal level down ballot items, but the presidency is different than all those other elections. The presidential popular election exists at the pleasure of the state legislature. If the popular vote does not exist, there is no structure for revoting: the day is set by federal statute as the first Tuesday in November. Without a popular vote, it goes directly to the state legislature to vote on. AFAIK there is NO legal basis for what to do next besides some foundational constitutional texts, and all they say is “the state legislatures choose the electors.” So, a simple majority in both houses would seem to do the trick.
they already said they wouldn't intervene. deep state gonna deep state
The PA state legislature could even just not appoint electors at all if they don't have confidence in the legitimacy of this election.
Nobody gets to 270, then it goes to the house of representatives where each state would get 1 vote.
I don’t think they can decide to not choose electors. They could fail to appoint electors in time, but even that’s probably illegal.
But couldn't the state leg decide they want to hold a revote as their method of deciding new electors? I don't see a legal/constitutional reason they can't.
^ This is the likely scenario
Electors don't vote on party lines, the state legislature for each state tells the electors how to vote.
If they attempt to vote any other way, the state lege can step in and tell the Electoral College to dismiss that vote and elector
That’s fascinating. The Constitution does not foresee political parties and needed the 12th amendment to account for them.
7 electors defected back in 2016.
I think the founders DID forsee them but explicitly warned against them.
Hopefully in person this time. If you are too scared of the flu to go vote, you don’t get your voice heard. Plain and simple. Tens of millions of people voted and hundreds of thousands protested, i mean rioted, over the summer.
They aren't even scared of the virus they're just doing it because they hate our POTUS, I'm already seeing people saying the virus isn't that serious on sports forums, when before the election they were shitting their pants and blaming Trump for everything.
Last time I saw my liberal uncle in Dallas he was hyperventilating about hand sanitizers and masks. Today he said he quarantined with covid, it’s nothing he’s just bored.
Sounds like he's given himself the vapours.
To be fair it was mostly peaceful rioting, I mean protesting.
Nice username
You too fren.
If they are so scared, the local government can rent the hazmat suit. It doesn't cost that much. The hazmat suits can be used for something else later for the local government or sell them on eBay.
Both. We are fighting voter turnout and not just fraud. If only Philadelphia revotes, turnout would be abnormally high.
That’s not possible. The authority to appoint electors would return to the PA general assembly where it originated.
Doesn't PA use voting machines for in person voting? That would mean that would remain but the mail in ballots are thrown out.
I don't know what PA uses, but it doesn't matter. It's an all or nothing deal. Can't cancel valid votes that were tainted with invalid.
Others are right, legislators likely pick electors. Revote for all other positions later.
It isn't an all or nothing deal. If the in person voting isn't demonstrated to be tainted, then it can remain. What would get purged would be what is demonstrably poisoned. SCOTUS would more likely take the route that disenfranchises the least amount of voters.