Why slim R majority states are getting massive D funding...
excerpt:
While there are 435 representatives, there will only be 50 votes (one per state). And a current tally of representatives in each state shows that there are more Republican-majority delegations than Democrat-majority delegations. Republicans control 26 delegations; Democrats dominate 22; Pennsylvania is tied and Democrats have a 7-6 Michigan plurality.
Pelosi has done the math, and expects the new Congress to handle the presidential election — if it comes to that.
Therefore, she has told Democrats to focus their resources on winning in states where Republicans only control a slim majority of seats.
Here’s another point to consider (posted here in similar thread):
Pelosi doesn’t have this power.
The provision she relies on only applies if neither candidate actually has a majority of Electoral Votes. Just because there’s a dispute requiring judicial determination doesn’t mean no one has a majority. It just means we won’t know who has that majority until the dispute is lawfully resolved.
That provision only applies if after counting the votes it actually turns out no one has a majority.
In plain English, if someone timely won the election, they won, even if we don’t know for sure until the courts resolve the dispute.
You can’t buy the applicability of this section just because you file a bunch of merit less lawsuits.
Why slim R majority states are getting massive D funding...
excerpt:
While there are 435 representatives, there will only be 50 votes (one per state). And a current tally of representatives in each state shows that there are more Republican-majority delegations than Democrat-majority delegations. Republicans control 26 delegations; Democrats dominate 22; Pennsylvania is tied and Democrats have a 7-6 Michigan plurality.
Pelosi has done the math, and expects the new Congress to handle the presidential election — if it comes to that.
Therefore, she has told Democrats to focus their resources on winning in states where Republicans only control a slim majority of seats.
Here’s another point to consider (posted here in similar thread):
Pelosi doesn’t have this power. The provision she relies on only applies if neither candidate actually has a majority of Electoral Votes. Just because there’s a dispute requiring judicial determination doesn’t mean no one has a majority. It just means we won’t know who has that majority until the dispute is lawfully resolved. That provision only applies if after counting the votes it actually turns out no one has a majority. In plain English, if someone timely won the election, they won, even if we don’t know for sure until the courts resolve the dispute. You can’t buy the applicability of this section just because you file a bunch of merit less lawsuits.
Seperation of Powers much?
Only if no one achieves 270.