Election fraud

[Leigha]

I just read earlier today that faithless electors have never changed the outcome of a Presidential election. Hmm.

Congrats MR?

[Magical Realist]

I just read earlier today that faithless electors have never changed the outcome of a Presidential election. Hmm.

Congrats MR?

Thanks!

[Syne]

I just read earlier today that faithless electors have never changed the outcome of a Presidential election. Hmm.

Yes, it would be unprecedented, but not unconstitutional. The amount to election irregularities is also unprecedented.

[Leigha]

I just read earlier today that faithless electors have never changed the outcome of a Presidential election. Hmm.

Yes, it would be unprecedented, but not unconstitutional. The amount to election irregularities is also unprecedented.

It seems that voter fraud happens rarely (or so we're told). That said, Trump's accusations of voter fraud have planted seeds of doubt, giving the appearance anyway, that an election could be rigged to favor one candidate, if millions of people vote by mail. What I've learned over the past month is that voter fraud is thought to be rare, because of the number of relevant prosecutions underway. That says less about actual voter fraud in my opinion, and more about a state's resources to prosecute cases involving potential fraud. My greater fear is that the Republican party continues to lose other elections and eventually dwindles away, leaving only the Democrats...eventually splitting into moderates and socialists. While I'm not pro-Republican, we need variety. Choice. Differing opinions. Please tell me that my wildest fears won't happen.

[Syne]

Boooya! And reality comes crashing down on MAGA!

U.S. Supreme Court rejects GOP bid to overturn Biden's victory in Pennsylvania

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-cou...n-results/

"Washington — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday spurned a request from Republican allies of President Trump to decertify Pennsylvania's election results, foreclosing hopes from Mr. Trump and his backers that the justices would help deliver him a second term in the White House.

In a one-line unsigned order, the high court left intact a decision from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that tossed out a lawsuit led by Republican Congressman Mike Kelly challenging a 2019 law that expanded mail-in voting in the state.

"The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied," the order said.:

Aw, I don't know if it's more cute or sad when ignorant people go claiming premature victory.

That case before SCOTUS is still pending. The Court only denied the application for injunctive relief, to temporarily decertify the PA election results pending further ruling. SCOTUS did not deny certiorari (judicial review). Now, to be fair, they still could deny certiorari, but they have not as yet.

---

I just read earlier today that faithless electors have never changed the outcome of a Presidential election. Hmm.

Yes, it would be unprecedented, but not unconstitutional. The amount to election irregularities is also unprecedented.

It seems that voter fraud happens rarely (or so we're told). That said, Trump's accusations of voter fraud have planted seeds of doubt, giving the appearance anyway, that an election could be rigged to favor one candidate, if millions of people vote by mail. What I've learned over the past month is that voter fraud is thought to be rare, because of the number of relevant prosecutions underway. That says less about actual voter fraud in my opinion, and more about a state's resources to prosecute cases involving potential fraud. My greater fear is that the Republican party continues to lose other elections and eventually dwindles away, leaving only the Democrats...eventually splitting into moderates and socialists. While I'm not pro-Republican, we need variety. Choice. Differing opinions. Please tell me that my wildest fears won't happen.

The leftist media tries to cover for a lot of politically motivated or benefiting crimes...like reporting "mostly peaceful protests" while whole blocks are burned or taken over. They're not reporting all these, including 1,125 criminal convictions of election fraud: https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

Aside from Trump, Republicans won every contested seat in Congress and have been taking over state legislatures, including those of all these swing states. That's one reason these election results are so unprecedented. Usually the success of the candidate at the top of a party's ticket, Trump or Biden, are also reflected down ballot, to congressional elections. But Republicans did way better than Democrats down ticket, which means that, unlike every other presidential election, Biden had no coattails for other candidates to ride to victory.

So short story is that the GOP isn't disappearing. They control more state legislatures, who are the ones who write and pass state election laws. So the GOP is best situated to ensure more secure future elections, even if it ends up that the Dems got away with cheating this time.

---

Rep. Daniel McCarthy Announces Arizona Legislators Invoked Article 2, Section 1 – Meaning Arizona is Officially a Contested Election

[confused2]

..including 1,125 criminal convictions of election fraud: https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

A frightening total.
From that total of 1,125 over the last 7 or more years - including a Fire chief buying votes using money and beer in his 2017 race for fire chief. - there are just 14 in the 2020 election.

[Syne]

Texas has filed a lawsuit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin directly with the Supreme Court, as it's a conflict between the states that cannot be addressed in lower courts. IOW, no waiting to appeal necessary. Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Missouri have also joined with Texas in the suit.

Unlike previous legal challenges, this one is not based on voter fraud or irregularities, and thus does not hinge on any evidence of such. Instead, this suit is purely a question of law. The crux is Article II, Section 1., Clause 2. of the US Constitution, which states:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

In all four states, changes were made to election laws and procedures without any consent of the state legislatures. This is plainly unconstitutional.


And where SCOTUS, and other courts, have likely sought to avoid these cases, for fear of an appearance of tainting the judiciary or accusations of bias, I don't see how they avoid this one. If they refuse to hear it or rule against it, that's basically ignoring the Constitution and saying the state executive branches can do whatever they want, without the checks and balances of a separate and equal legislative branch. That would be a very hard ruling to justify.

[Syne]

And before anyone claims premature victory for yesterday being the "safe harbor" deadline, here's Ruth Bader Ginsburg to set you straight:

As Justice Ginsburg wrote in her opinion, "The December 12 'deadline' for bringing Florida's electoral votes into safe harbor lacks the significance the Court assigns it. Were that date to pass, Florida would still be entitled to deliver electoral votes Congress must count unless both Houses find that the votes 'had not been... regularly given.' The statute identifies other significant dates, specifying December 18 as 'the date electors shall meet and give their votes' and specifying 'the fourth Wednesday in December' — this year, December 27 — as the date on which Congress, if it has not received a State's electoral votes, shall request the state secretary of state to send a certified return immediately. But none of these dates has ultimate significance in light of Congress' detailed provisions for determining, on 'the sixth day of January,' the validity of electoral votes."
http://content.time.com/time/nation/arti...34,00.html

[Syne]

17 states have now joined the Texas SCOTUS lawsuit against four swing states.

Missouri’s attorney general filed an amicus motion in support of Texas, joined by counterparts from 16 other states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics...ur-states/

[Syne]

Inauguration Committee Fails to Pass Resolution Acknowledging Biden as President-Elect