I get all of that.
But even if the court finds the elections in those states to have been unconstitutional, that doesn't mean: "since the election was invalid, we give it to the other guy." A unconstitutional election does not automatically mean, or even imply, that "the guy that won did so because of the violations". Not even close. This is of course the public assumption but it doesn't even enter the sphere of context in the case or ruling.
I still don't understand.
- Why would the current electors in Republican majority states not already be such people?
- The electors are supposed to vote however the state voted. They need a good reason not to. They can't just change the state's vote because they prefer Trump. So even if SCOTUS finds that the states held unconstitutional elections, how does that translate to changing the vote?
I wish someone would answer your question with some degree of substance because I would love to understand it. I get the feeling most here don't have a clue at all and just cheer when things sound positive.
What does that mean?
It's the single most important thing happening in the U.S. They damn well better hear the case.
There's a big difference between those two possibilities.
It just doesn't interest me because it reads like using technicalities to drop probably legitimate votes. Legitimate as in real votes cast by real people.
It's nothing compared to the weighted race fraud.
Best possible outcome here is what?
It never ceases to amaze me how sincerely people (on all sides) can think that anything they do is OK so long as they're winning.
To play Devil's Advocate, what is the legitimate angle here?
To me it sounds like PA disregarded the superficial mail-in ballot handling laws and instead counted every ballot received.
And the implication is that if all of the mail-in ballots that met any of those meager criteria were not counted, Biden would have fewer votes since presumably Biden got the bulk of mail-in votes.
To me, that's not fraud. It may be illegal, but it isn't necessarily deliberate fraud trying to unfairly swing an election. If anything it sounds like fraud that attempts to fairly swing and election by making sure every vote is counted. It's simply counting all the ballots. ALL of them. Instead of counting only the ones that meet the criteria for a mail-in ballot.
WTF. This is hurting my head. How do you reconcile that with this: https://hub.jhu.edu/2020/09/01/comorbidities-and-coronavirus-deaths-cdc/
Someone has to be wrong.
I accept that that is possible, but not likely.
Well no, but the CDC itself told us a while back when the "deaths" were reaching 200k in the US that actual "COVID deaths" meaning deaths that could not be attributed to anything else, were around 6-9k.
Beyond the 6-9k it appears that COVID has accelerated pre-existing conditions that would have otherwise killed these people in months, or years.
The Flu does that too, but not as aggressively.
Source on that? I'm being shown that the U.S. mortality rate is literally 200k+ above normal, which is completely impossible given how closely it matches alleged COVID death rates and the fact that we have no stats on flu, pneumonia and other death rates this year due to them all having been rolled up in the COVID numbers. We know the COVID rates (even if we're being really generous) has to be closer to 100k because we didn't stop dying from the other things for which we have no stats now. So we can't have 100k deaths from a new phenomena and be 200k net above normal.
So wtf?
Got it now. Thank you.
Either the Republican majority legislatures choose new (R) electors, or the House votes with 1 vote per state which is also (R) majority.
Either outcome is a likely Trump win.