so, then it actually does mean we don't even need objectors? Pence can legally just say "Fuck off Biden electors from PA, AZ, GA, MI, WI and NV"? ...in Minecraft and without the F-words...
I'm probably wrong on this, and hopefully a more knowledgeable pede will correct me, but I thought it went like this;
Jan 6 - In the absence of a majority (270) the House votes to select the president, the Senate votes to select the Vice President.
If there are issues with conflicting electoral votes, the two houses may vote which to accept or reject. If they can't agree, the electors certified by the Governor of the disputed state would be counted.
Again, probably wrong, but hopefully someone chimes in.
Edit - Okay, I feel it's not fair to have others do the hard lifting while I sit here. It turns out it's a state-by-state vote in the House. So not number of sitting congresswomen (this is a thing now, right Emanuel Cleaver?). It's one vote per state. So while Congress is Democrat majority by total seats, the Republicans have this by State vote (California with 55 electoral votes now gets just as much of a say as Montana with 3).
Could he unilaterally reject one set but not the other? Legally and for optics maybe he rejects those states entirely for failing to run an election and then it goes to delegates. Hmm
I think there are a couple options. He can tell them to fuck off (or rather tear up those ballots), which I think would reduce the number of votes needed to win, handing it directly to Trump. He can also say “hmm, we have two sets of electors here from these states, I don’t know which to choose,” in which case the winning number would still be 270. In that case the president would be elected by the House, and the VP by the Senate.
He's within his rights to resolve the dispute in this manner in the strict sense of it. That will never satisfy our opponents because, in this case, that dispute happens to determine the outcome of the election. Nonetheless, the rule is the rule, and there is no rigid rule I'm aware of that requires him to recuse himself, however much the left may try to say he must.
so, then it actually does mean we don't even need objectors? Pence can legally just say "Fuck off Biden electors from PA, AZ, GA, MI, WI and NV"? ...in Minecraft and without the F-words...
He can refuse to count any electors from contested states and then neither candidate hits 270
What would have to happen after that?
I believe states then vote by delegation with each state getting 1 vote. R's have a strong lead there, something like +6
contingency election. 1 vote per state.
I'm probably wrong on this, and hopefully a more knowledgeable pede will correct me, but I thought it went like this;
Jan 6 - In the absence of a majority (270) the House votes to select the president, the Senate votes to select the Vice President.
If there are issues with conflicting electoral votes, the two houses may vote which to accept or reject. If they can't agree, the electors certified by the Governor of the disputed state would be counted.
Again, probably wrong, but hopefully someone chimes in.
Edit - Okay, I feel it's not fair to have others do the hard lifting while I sit here. It turns out it's a state-by-state vote in the House. So not number of sitting congresswomen (this is a thing now, right Emanuel Cleaver?). It's one vote per state. So while Congress is Democrat majority by total seats, the Republicans have this by State vote (California with 55 electoral votes now gets just as much of a say as Montana with 3).
I think I get this now.
Could he unilaterally reject one set but not the other? Legally and for optics maybe he rejects those states entirely for failing to run an election and then it goes to delegates. Hmm
I think there are a couple options. He can tell them to fuck off (or rather tear up those ballots), which I think would reduce the number of votes needed to win, handing it directly to Trump. He can also say “hmm, we have two sets of electors here from these states, I don’t know which to choose,” in which case the winning number would still be 270. In that case the president would be elected by the House, and the VP by the Senate.
He's within his rights to resolve the dispute in this manner in the strict sense of it. That will never satisfy our opponents because, in this case, that dispute happens to determine the outcome of the election. Nonetheless, the rule is the rule, and there is no rigid rule I'm aware of that requires him to recuse himself, however much the left may try to say he must.