6380
Comments (1116)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
140
STEVE_HUFFMANS_BULL 140 points ago +140 / -0

We can't let this happen !

Good news is that the electoral college votes on December 14, regardless of how many states actually have electors to send

46
Mr_Beanths 46 points ago +46 / -0

Ooooooo, this is good

93
STEVE_HUFFMANS_BULL 93 points ago +94 / -1

It really is. The beauty of the system is that if a state can’t get its shit together, it simply doesn’t vote, and no other states are affected. How nobody seems to understand this and thinks that if they draw the chaos out to Jan 20 Pelosi magically becomes President is beyond me

51
MaxineWaters4Prez 51 points ago +51 / -0

Don't anticipate the democrats following rules and procedures.

36
STEVE_HUFFMANS_BULL 36 points ago +36 / -0

I get that. But outright ignoring how the EC has operated for 232 years is a bridge too far for most people. There’s no way to interpret what they’re doing other than that it’s a hot coup and they don’t care what the electorate wants. At that point the republic is dead until we purge the plotters

6
RabidZoo 6 points ago +6 / -0

Sounds like the liberals will pull some fuckery in swing states if they think their state is going to lose.

It also makes me wonder if they can forge a postmark on fake ballots to push them through if they're not in the system on time.

16
Ghostof_PatrickHenry 16 points ago +16 / -0

Gas-lighting.

This is definitely their plan.

13
deleted 13 points ago +13 / -0
8
iamherefortheluls 8 points ago +8 / -0

heard this theory that if a state doesn't have a valid election, current state government can just declare a vote for president as they see fit? I am not well versed on how states actually cast their votes...

11
STEVE_HUFFMANS_BULL 11 points ago +11 / -0

The Constitution gives no requirements for how states choose their electors. So for example, it would be a douche move (but perfectly legal) for Wisconsin to pass a law saying that there’s no election, we’re picking electors based on how much beer bread and cheese they can handle.

If it comes up, we’d have to look at the state’s specific laws around the topic to see what happens

5
Mr_Beanths 5 points ago +5 / -0

THANKS, PEDE! Keep fucking Spez’s wife.

26
Forgotmyoldpassword 26 points ago +26 / -0

They declare any rule not in their favor as racist or fascist. Just like the electoral college. They couldn't win so they pivoted to popular vote. This time around they can't even win the popular vote so they have to attack the entire voting system.

17
TrumpVictorious 17 points ago +17 / -0

As long as we get over 270.

Dems are going to full court press purple states with blue governors.

16
STEVE_HUFFMANS_BULL 16 points ago +16 / -0

We don’t need 270. We need a majority of the votes cast. If California doesn’t send electors, only 483 are available, and 242 are needed to win

9
TrumpVictorious 9 points ago +10 / -1

Don’t put it past democrats to have electors submit votes for non-candidates or bullshit candidates to make sure nobody has a majority.

If a couple of purple states for example direct electors to Vote for the Green Party candidate as an upset move, then the total electors remains high but nobody gets a majority.

They consider spying and treason fair tactics, why not rigging the electoral college?

2
STEVE_HUFFMANS_BULL 2 points ago +2 / -0

If they do that, the choice goes to whoever makes up the House on January 6 (ie, the candidates chosen in November). Each state gets one vote, so no advantage for CA and NY. I don’t think they’d like that outcome

2
SpeedyPrius1 2 points ago +2 / -0

Didn't the Supreme Court just put a kabosh on that?

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
2
papaMAGA 2 points ago +2 / -0

source?

5
STEVE_HUFFMANS_BULL 5 points ago +5 / -0

The Constitution. Article II, Section 3, and Amendments XII and XX cover how the EC works, and nothing in there explicitly enumerates how many votes are required to win other than a “majority”

11
lafingman0 11 points ago +11 / -0

vote early, vote in person!

9
Doolimite 9 points ago +10 / -1

I agree. Others here have said to wait until Election Day so the Dems don’t know ahead of time how much to cheat... but if you are in a big city, you should count on the fact that shit will be burning and mass violence and intimidation will be popping off around you so definitely vote early imo

2
featherwinglove 2 points ago +2 / -0

Which they're trying to change to "Vote early, vote often" lol!

8
electricboogaloo 8 points ago +8 / -0

etet OQkmtM ISHn 1AY Ce3XsxyK DPt H wNR8 ZxBqfxP

7
zabbers 7 points ago +7 / -0

Even back then they knew city folk were weird, liable to rumor mongering and social pressure leading to mass hysteria. They don't see the world the same as rural folk. They aren't close to the means of production, and have an easier life where everything can be bought with enough money. They aren't busy toiling to live all day, so they constantly invent new problems and demand someone solve them. Idle hands. This has always been true.