7473
Comments (327)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
46
Rightisright 46 points ago +48 / -2

Also, remember state legislatures choose the electors and choose who they want.

61
commies0ride0free 61 points ago +61 / -0

Id rather rely on court cases throwing out illegal votes and Trump winning states. I’ll never forget that in 2016 the left held on to the hope that the electors would go against, and always thought that was pathetic. I refuse to do that now

22
TentElephant 22 points ago +22 / -0

Forget the electors, the state legislatures have final authority, but the republicucks are too busy helping Biden win. They don't have the balls to Stop the Steal themselves.

14
DeplorableWeWin 14 points ago +14 / -0

If the courts fail the system with massive evidence of illegality and voter fraud and election Fraud by officials in certain states then it’s the state representatives duty to not certify at all and send no electors or choose the rightful electors (Trump). That was not the case in. 2016, no matter how much the left and media screamed Russia bs.

2
commies0ride0free 2 points ago +2 / -0

“It’s the states’ representatives duty not to certify”

Did not know that, do they vote on that as an entire legislative body, or is it a smaller group? How does that work?

3
No_Malarkey_Joe 3 points ago +3 / -0

Wasn't the left banking on the electors themselves to flip? We're talking about something else entirely. The state legislatures decide which electors to send. So there's nothing stopping a state legislature from a stolen state to say "fuck you Joe" and send Trump electors to the electoral college. Granted it depends on how the state constitution says they're supposed to pick electors (I think in PA it's based on the popular vote) Also I'm not particularly banking on this because even though the legislatures in the swing states are Republican it would take a level of cajones to do that I don't think Republicans are capable of having.

2
commies0ride0free 2 points ago +2 / -0

I suppose you’re correct: it’s a bit different because we know for a fact that some of the states have been stolen, rather than just “oh shock, bad man orange pls vote Crooked.”

However I agree that I don’t expect the legislatures to just go ahead and do it- I suppose my opinion is that if it’s the right thing for the electors to vote Trump they’ll be able to prove that he won the states in court. It’s not about optics, but It would be nice to have legal rulings to rely on

2
Rightisright 2 points ago +2 / -0

I believe the legislature can just change the rules around how they choose the electors before doing so.

3
Rightisright 3 points ago +3 / -0

I am not talking about the electors being faithless. I am saying the legislatures from the states can choose Trump electors based on them not believing the election had any integrity.

1
commies0ride0free 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think I’m misunderstanding- if the “official count” (I know, we all know it’s fraudulent but humor me) has Jim Crow Joe winning the state then wouldn’t the electors technically be faithless if they vote Trump?

1
_Eric_Ciaramella_ 1 point ago +1 / -0

Youre a good person

3
AT_Finn 3 points ago +3 / -0

I hope no one is counting on this. This is a last stop gap measure, that I doubt would hold anyway as most of our politicians are cucked.

5
Rightisright 5 points ago +5 / -0

I talked to my PA rep and he is a full go if it comes down to this being needed. Trust me the area I live in he would have to move if the party was going this way and he decided to vote against it.

1
philandy 1 point ago +1 / -0

Wrong, they have only let that happen if it didn't affect the winner.

2
Rightisright 2 points ago +2 / -0

Read the constitution, the legislature from each state chooses the electors, however, they see fit.

1
philandy 1 point ago +1 / -0

I didn't mean the legislatures, I meant if there are faithless Electors - the Electors themselves.

1
PikachuJohnson 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ex post facto (retroactive) laws are also unconstitutional.

1
PikachuJohnson 1 point ago +1 / -0

It used to be in most states that the legislatures themselves would directly allocate their state’s EVs, instead of by popular vote. The legislature would say, “all of our electoral votes go to this candidate”, or “fine, we’ll give six of our electoral votes to this candidate and four to the other.” In 1788, only three out of eleven states (Rhode Island and North Carolina hadn’t yet ratified the Constitution, and thus were technically not part of the Union) held popular votes to allocate electors, iirc.

0
DisgustedByMisleadia 0 points ago +1 / -1

Every state currently relies on the popular vote to appoint the electors (Nebraska and Maine have a slight variation).

The state legislature MAY get involved if there is a disputed result that cannot be resolved by the safe harbor date (2020-12-08). But, I don't think any state allows the state legislature to override the popular vote.

This is enshrined in state law. Ignoring the law is a leftist tactic... don't fall for it.

2
Rightisright 2 points ago +2 / -0

They can change the law. Anyways the constitution is the law. This is the way. Do you think in 16 if Trump would have won a blue state and it was needed to get him over 270 that they would have sent Trump electors? Fuck no. We can not allow them to use our decency against us as they fuck us in the ass. No red state should ever send a democratic elector again. This includes PA, WI, MI, AZ, GA, NC.

0
DisgustedByMisleadia 0 points ago +2 / -2

No, they can't change their state law, without providing an opportunity for challenge. It has to be pursuant to law enacted before the election.

If you use leftist tactics against leftists, you become them.

1
Rightisright 1 point ago +1 / -0

We will use every legal remedy we have available to us. The head of the PA state GOP has all ready suggested this is as an option so I will take his interpretation of the law over yours.