73% of Republicans believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen. For the Republican establishment/elite, it is easy to understand why. The politicians cater to the base in order to continue gainful employment as senators and congressmen/women with all its perks and privilege and prestige. The future of the nation is a distant second as a motivator.

The elite, composed of the wealthy, are motivated by the status quo that gives them a luxurious standard of living. Again, the future of the nation is a distant second.

What about the base? Who are these millions that supported Trump and believe that the election was stolen? They proclaim patriotism but when quizzed about their reasons for believing the election was stolen, they are uniformly incoherent when giving their reasons.

When they respond to interviewers with incoherent answers that reveal them to be less than knowledgeable about current affairs, they then aggressively answer interviewers with words like "Communistic" and "socialistic". They revert to the trigger words when they stumble over issues that they are clearly uninformed about. "Socialistic" evil, however, is a fierce belief of these people even though they would be surprised to learn that their medicare and social security are "socialistic".

Dozens of court case (including all the way to the Supreme Court), audits and recounts (witness the travesty of the Arizona CyberNinja idiocy), and plain common sense have done not a whit to disabuse them of their tightly held beliefs of a stolen election.

Are there other reasons for such a blind unthinking allegiance to an event that has been proven to have never occurred?

Another aspect of the Republican Party membership is that the party has morphed into the Trump Cult with white evangelicals being the primary supporting demographic.

The elites are swamp critters regardless of party affiliation .They wallow in the riches and privileges their position allows them to obtain They don't necessarily start that way . They may have the best intentions entering public service . But soon they are consumed by the swamp culture .

Look at All Out Crazy. She thinks she is Joan of Arc champion of the little people . But she has now fully embraced the swamp culture and isn't even aware that wearing expensive gowns with a tax the rich message ;while hobnobbing comfortably in the land of the elite rich snobs is completely hypocritical . It just never occurs to her that is so. Meanwhile she worked to kill an initiative that would've generated thousands of jobs in her district .

I do not understand the objection to election audits . If all they do is prove Quid won then why the fear of them ?
btw the compliant press only focused on the results of the hand count in AZ while ignoring the statistically significant anomalies identified including thousands of ballots cast that were of questionable legality

I often think that I know of nothing much more alarming than the fact that someone like AOC is actually listened to in a serious manner and gets to have input on the operation of our government. You are absolutely correct that her wearing an expensive gown with "tax the rich" on it was silly on several levels. The rich already pay most of the income and inheritance taxes in our county, and putting the message on an expensive gown is on the level of showing up in a mink coat with "Be Kind to Animals" written on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Look at All Out Crazy. She thinks she is Joan of Arc champion of the little people . But she has now fully embraced the swamp culture and isn't even aware that wearing expensive gowns with a tax the rich message ;while hobnobbing comfortably in the land of the elite rich snobs is completely hypocritical

---

The gown thing was a stunt to make a point. She has hardly "fully embraced the swamp culture" and you seeing it as hypocritical betrays your lack of getting her intentions. Plus, she's a knockout and was born in the Bronx neighborhood I grew up in. In fact, just two buildings down from mine. SC Justice Sotomayor is also from that area - two neighborhoods over. The Bronx will rise again!

Quote:

---

I do not understand the objection to election audits . If all they do is prove Quid won then why the fear of them ?
btw the compliant press only focused on the results of the hand count in AZ while ignoring the statistically significant anomalies identified including thousands of ballots cast that were of questionable legality

---

On a more serious note, the several election audits and recounts demanded by the Trump faction serve to undermine the validity of the election even when it has been uniformly praised by all sides (except the Trumpites) as honest and the largest turnout ever.

There were no "statistically significant anomalies" claimed by the far-right loonie who runs CyberNinja as basically a one-man band. These claims were not ignored by a "compliant press". In fact, they were thoroughly debunked by CNN, MSNBC, and print media. You prefer FOX and that's your right but you can't change facts.

The danger with these recounts demanded by Trump is that the Republican state legislatures are moving to override the electoral college by declaring it invalid and replacing it with Republican electors or simply declaring their candidate the winner.

73% of Republicans believe the election was stolen. I hope that is not your belief.

As has been said again and again, this is a serious threat to the American system of government.

Justice Sotomayor is cool . Nothing phony about her .

There will continue to be demands for forensic audits of the election to identify "irregularities" that were rampant in the election. Let's put aside charges of theft and corruption for a minute . The way election laws were changed in a pell mell way because of covid made the possibility of "irregular" results more likely .

You say the audits undermine the validity of the election and I say that unless the audits are done there will never be confidence in the integrity of the process .

The practice of ballot harvesting is but one example of an idea that has great potential for corruption. Having partisan hands on ballots prior to being turned over to voting officials is plainly a bad concept. "Just picked up old man Terry's ballot. He has made some pro-repub comments in the past, so into the trash goes his ballot!"

I think the primary contributing factor to Trump's loss was not the election being stolen but rather his unwillingness to control his big mouth. But our voting process leaves much to be desired. It should be so efficiently run that voter confidence in the process itself is high. That is certainly not the case now, and I'm sure both sides have some valid complaints. I would say the idea of the massive use of absentee ballots is more open to corruption than is the practice of in-person voting, for instance. If long lines are a problem, then perhaps we need more polling places or a two-day voting window. The use of voter ID's seems to be a plainly good idea. We just need a general commitment to integrity in the voting process.

Quote:

---

The politicians cater to the base in order to continue gainful employment as senators and congressmen/women with all its perks and privilege and prestige. The future of the nation is a distant second as a motivator.

---

One of the greatest arguments I've ever heard for limited government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Having partisan hands on ballots prior to being turned over to voting officials is plainly a bad concept. "Just picked up old man Terry's ballot. He has made some pro-repub comments in the past, so into the trash goes his ballot!"

---

Are there non-partisan hands-on ballots?

It works both ways: "Just picked up Gramma Tilly's ballot. She has made some pro-dem, even lib, comments in the past, so into the trash goes her ballot!"

Quote:

---

But our voting process leaves much to be desired. It should be so efficiently run that voter confidence in the process itself is high.

---

For mail-in ballots, states should take a hint from Illinois' scrupulous oversight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Are there non-partisan hands?

It works both ways: "Just picked up Gramma Tilly's ballot. She has made some pro-dem, even lib, comments in the past, so into the trash goes her ballot!"

---

Both good points.

It seems whenever the infinitesimal amount of actual fraud is uncovered it tends to be committed by Republican Trump Cultists.


The following is still hanging waiting for an answer:

73% of Republicans believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

Dozens of court case (including all the way to the Supreme Court), audits and recounts (witness the travesty of the Arizona CyberNinja idiocy), and plain common sense have done not a whit to disabuse them of their tightly held beliefs of a stolen election.

Are there other reasons for such a blind unthinking allegiance to an event that has been proven to have never occurred?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

You say the audits undermine the validity of the election and I say that unless the audits are done there will never be confidence in the integrity of the process .

---

The audits and recounts were done by Republican Board of Elections Commissioners. These were unacceptable to the loony fringe of the Trump Cultists so the state legislatures arranged for these loonies to hold THEIR audits and recounts and have come up with a GREATER vote count for Biden!

The results apparently meant nothing to the Trumpites as they continue on their merry way undermining the election process wherever possible.

What is your position on State Legislatures changing the rules to invalidate the electoral college and even declare their own candidate to be the winner?

Quote:

---

What is your position on State Legislatures changing the rules to invalidate the electoral college and even declare their own candidate to be the winner?

---

They can't invalidate the electoral college .Many states have changed their rules to mandate their electors vote for the winner of the popular vote . That is a constitutional provision since it it the state legislatures that decide .This is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) . This compact was in place long before the election happened

My position on changing the rules in the middle of the game is consistent . I oppose it ;and that included the last ditch effort to have Repub legislatures select electors that would vote for Trump . Across the board the states voted for slates of electors on election day.

I think the election has been decided . As I said ,to have faith in elections the people have to believe that the elections are fair . That is why I continue to support audits .


What ? The Dems have never supported recounts ? What the Dems never called an election illegitimate ? All I heard for 4 years was that Trump stole the election of 2016 . All I heard for 8 years was that GW Bush was "selected " .

. Glenn Youngkin, the Virginia Republican nominee for governor, ‘I grew up in a world where you have an audit every year, in businesses you have an audit. So let’s just audit the voting machines, publish it so everybody can see it.’ The Arizona audit found serious irregularities 23,344 ‘mail-in ballots voted from a prior address’; 9,041 ‘more ballots returned by voter than received’; 5,295 ‘voters that potentially voted in multiple counties’; 2,592 ‘more duplicates than original ballots’; and 2,382 ‘in-person voters who had moved out of Maricopa County , voters whose ballots were counted despite the fact that they registered to vote after the state deadline for registration had already passed.
That finding should help the state amend it's laws to correct the issues found .

Quote:

---

What ? The Dems have never supported recounts ? What the Dems never called an election illegitimate ? All I heard for 4 years was that Trump stole the election of 2016 . All I heard for 8 years was that GW Bush was "selected " .

---

Exactly correct. The only reason complaints are being voiced is because it fits in nicely with the "we hate Trump" crowd. It's the same reason there was so much grousing about Covid deaths when Trump was pres, but not that it's Biden, it's just ignored. Just more stinkin politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Many states have changed their rules to mandate their electors vote for the winner of the popular vote . That is a constitutional provision since it it the state legislatures that decide .This is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) .

---

I have no problem with that. The only two recent elections that have been won by the candidate with fewer votes have been Republicans.

Quote:

---

My position on changing the rules in the middle of the game is consistent . I oppose it ;and that included the last ditch effort to have Repub legislatures select electors that would vote for Trump .

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

I think the election has been decided . As I said ,to have faith in elections the people have to believe that the elections are fair .

---

Thank you.

Quote:

---

That is why I continue to support audits

---

I also support audits, but not the kind that take place AFTER the secretary of state (often Republican) has already performed an audit/recount. I'm referring to the extra audits authorized by Republican state legislatures after their own party has already performed an audit/recount. Like the Arizona CyberNinja BS.

Some state legislatures have called for the removal of Republican secretaries of state who don't see it their way. See Georgia.

Quote:

---

What the Dems never called an election illegitimate ? All I heard for 4 years was that Trump stole the election of 2016 . All I heard for 8 years was that GW Bush was "selected " .

---

There is reason to believe that Trump was elected under false circumstances. That story is not over yet. There is no reason to believe that Biden was elected under false circumstances. Bush was elected by the SC decision re Florida.

Quote:

---

The Arizona audit found serious irregularities 23,344 ‘mail-in ballots voted from a prior address’; 9,041 ‘more ballots returned by voter than received’; 5,295 ‘voters that potentially voted in multiple counties’; 2,592 ‘more duplicates than original ballots’; and 2,382 ‘in-person voters who had moved out of Maricopa County , voters whose ballots were counted despite the fact that they registered to vote after the state deadline for registration had already passed.

---

Every one of these accusations has been rebutted.

There were actually a total of 2,364,426 mail-in ballots requested, and 1,918,024 of them were returned.

Senate President Karen Fann said Maricopa County “sent letters out to the voters and saying, ‘Please be aware our system’s been hacked or breached, and we believe none of your personal information has been disclosed.’”

There was no hack, and it isn’t possible for hackers to change votes because the ballot tabulation equipment is a “closed air gapped system,” meaning it isn’t connected to the internet.

In fact, the county in February released the results of the independent forensic audit of its ballot tabulation equipment that found “no issues” with how the votes were counted. That audit was conducted by two federally certified Voting System Testing Laboritories— Pro V&V and SLI Compliance.

The rest of your claimed "irregularities" can be seen as false in this very detailed website.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/07/de...ection-claims/

Quote:

---

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/custom...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by tomder55 https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/custom...post-right.png
Many states have changed their rules to mandate their electors vote for the winner of the popular vote . That is a constitutional provision since it it the state legislatures that decide .This is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) .



I have no problem with that. The only two recent elections that have been won by the candidate with fewer votes have been Republicans.

---

This pact will last only until one of the states where the vote in the state goes against the national popular vote winner and the electors are forced to go against the state popular will. You know that will happen sooner or later .

Quote:

---

I'm referring to the extra audits authorized by Republican state legislatures after their own party has already performed an audit/recount. Like the Arizona CyberNinja BS.

---

I don't care how many audits as long as the end product is exposing flaws in the process and corrections made .

Quote:

---

There is reason to believe that Trump was elected under false circumstances. That story is not over yet.

---

Yes far from over yet. The more we learn the more we learn about the collusion of the Evita campaign and the Emperor's admiration's efforts to use the power of the state to steal the election from Trump.

Quote:

---

Bush was elected by the SC decision re Florida.

---

An independent recount by media showed that Bush won Fla in 2000 by more votes than the final tally

Quote:

---

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/07/de...ection-claims/

---

I do not pay attention to anything the Anneberg group claims . Their agenda is well known .Although Walter H. Annenberg was a Nixonian Republican ,his Foundation was coopted and used to fund leftist causes. Don't forget that the emperor and Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers were put in charge of one of the Anneberg education initiatives .

I also dismiss out of hand the op -eds of fact checkers of all stripes and have never used them as a source. As lib journalist Ben Smith once said about fact checkers ...
“At their worst, they’re doing opinion journalism under pseudo-scientific banners"

Quote:

---

Bush was elected by the SC decision re Florida.


An independent recount by media showed that Bush won Fla in 2000 by more votes than the final tally

---

It's surprising to see that raised as an issue. The Florida situation is a perfect illustration of how the same liberals who currently oppose audits and profess great faith in the honesty of the electoral process were of a completely different opinion just twenty years ago. It all comes down to who won and who lost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

This pact will last only until one of the states where the vote in the state goes against the national popular vote winner and the electors are forced to go against the state popular will. You know that will happen sooner or later .

---

My understanding of the Electoral College is that it was established to reverse a popular vote for a demagogue. That seems naive in the 21st century especially after the election of 2016. Serious thought should be given to a nation-wide popular vote as the deciding factor. Smaller states would still have their senate disproportionate representation to champion their interests.

Quote:

---

I don't care how many audits as long as the end product is exposing flaws in the process and corrections made

---

Where does it stop? Already extra audits are being authorized by Republican legislatures apparently until they get one that serves their purpose. When they are carried out by fraudsters like CyberNinja, they defeat the purpose of voting even tho' CyberNinja was forced to admit the accuracy of Biden winning. They still managed to muddy the water with unproven claims.

Quote:

---

The more we learn the more we learn about the collusion of the Evita campaign and the Emperor's admiration's efforts to use the power of the state to steal the election from Trump.

---

That is right-wing QANON material.

Quote:

---

An independent recount by media showed that Bush won Fla in 2000 by more votes than the final tally

---

There were different conclusions from the post-election media recounts. One had Bush winning by 493 votes and another had Gore votes increased by 682. But that is not the main issue of that SC decision.

Even Alan Dershowitz, of all people, wrote:

[T]he decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath.^[75]

Quote:

---

I do not pay attention to anything the Anneberg group claims

---

This is an ongoing problem when attempting to show facts to you. When they don't agree with your position, you dismiss them out of hand. Not because they're not true, but because they're not playing your tune.

Quote:

---

I also dismiss out of hand the op -eds of fact checkers of all stripes and have never used them as a source.

---

That is the most arrogant position I've seen. If you disagree with fact-checkers, then offer your own facts that show them to be wrong. It's as simple as that. But you don't do that. You just, in your own words, "dismiss them out of hand". That is no way to carry on a discussion. You, of all people, should know that.

Quote:

---

Even Alan Dershowitz, of all people, wrote:

[T]he decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history,

---

He is right that it is a bad SCOTUS call . His reason is wrong . It was a bad call because the Fla vote was decided when the vote was certified . Once that was done then the courts had no role and that is how SCOTUS should've ruled . Since then every election is being refereed by the courts when the Constitution clearly makes the states the referee.

As far as so called "fact checkers" go I don't bother wasting my time with point by point rebuttal . The arrogance is them pretending to be the gate keepers of truth . The nativity is in the people who go to them as a primary source . Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? And I gave my reason for distrusting any "fact" that is forwarded by the Anneberg group .

Quote:

---

My understanding of the Electoral College is that it was established to reverse a popular vote for a demagogue.

---

The states existed before the Republic and essentially before the revolution .
The Electoral College was designed by the framers deliberately to protect the nation from the dangers inherent in democracy. We are a federal republic .The popular vote is not mentioned at all in Article 2 .So going solely by the popular will is democratic but also anti-Constitutional.

The very fact that the states have decided to appoint their electors by elections is a testament to the Federal system . The states decided how electors are appointed . Evita got 61% of the California vote in 2016 but got all of the states electors even though most of the counties of the state voted for Trump (Evita won the population centers ) . So it works both ways . It gives deference to proportional representation in the number of electors each state gets . And it gives states the power to determine the way electors are appointed ,

Quote:

---

Smaller states would still have their senate disproportionate representation to champion their interests.

---

You are in the minority of the progressive ranks that would like to see the federal system completely dismantled more than it already has been since the beginning of the 20th century national power grab from Washington . There is also a move to abolish or to reduce the power of the Senate . So much for protecting the interests of small states .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

He is right that it is a bad SCOTUS call . His reason is wrong . It was a bad call because the Fla vote was decided when the vote was certified

---

Do you therefore also apply this reasoning to the Jan 6 insurrection attempt to prevent the vote from being certified?

Quote:

---

As far as so called "fact checkers" go I don't bother wasting my time with point by point rebuttal The arrogance is them pretending to be the gate keepers of truth .

---

This is the argument of a child. If you COULD rebut facts point by point, I'm sure you would do just that. Lacking that ability to rebut, you call it "wasting time". That's exactly how small children argue. Presenting the truth is not an exercise in arrogance. The arrogance is when you dismiss the facts without the slightest attempt to show they are wrong.

Quote:

---

The nativity is in the people who go to them as a primary source

---

I think you meant naivete. What could be a better source than facts? It's a simple matter to challenge facts - just offer your own facts and let the reader decide. But you don't do that. The naivete is all yours.

Quote:

---

And I gave my reason for distrusting any "fact" that is forwarded by the Anneberg group .

---

Your "reason" was not a reason at all. It was simply a false argument challenging the FACT-CHECKER instead of the FACT ITSELF. A logical fallacy.

Hmm. That sure didn't sound like a celebration of the other guy's views. Very disappointing.

Quote:

---

This is the argument of a child.

---

Quote:

---

If you COULD rebut facts point by point, I'm sure you would do just that. Lacking that ability to rebut, you call it "wasting time". That's exactly how small children argue.

---

Quote:

---

But you don't do that. The naivete is all yours.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The Electoral College was designed by the framers deliberately to protect the nation from the dangers inherent in democracy.

---

I agree. Then how do you explain the 2016 election?

Quote:

---

going solely by the popular will is democratic but also anti-Constitutional.

---

The Constitution can be, and has been, amended.

Quote:

---

The very fact that the states have decided to appoint their electors by elections is a testament to the Federal system . The states decided how electors are appointed

---

By eliminating Federal office holders from being electors, the FF intended the electors to be free agents, their voting based on their high integrity and intelligence. Over time, the states used their power of selecting electors to be partisan or based on the popular vote. Either way, the electors were no longer free agents doing what was best fort the nation. Now the electoral college simply duplicates the popular vote by state. So what's the point of the Electoral College?

Quote:

---

There is also a move to abolish or to reduce the power of the Senate . So much for protecting the interests of small states .

---

California has almost 40,000,000 population. Wyoming has less than 600,000. Both states have an equal number of electoral college votes that are based on number of senators. Two votes apiece. Eliminating the Electoral College eliminates the disparity. I am open to having my view changed.

Electoral college votes are based on the number of reps a state has in the House in addition to the number of senators. Thus Cali has 55 while Wyoming has...3. So not real sure what disparity is being looked at.

Quote:

---

I agree. Then how do you explain the 2016 election?

---

Trump won despite the attempt by Evita and the Obama Adm to steal it .

Quote:

---

The Constitution can be, and has been, amended.

---

go for it . I have some ideas that would make good amendments . Of course they will not happen the more traditional way with them being initiated by the swamp 'big state' Congress that has a stake in the status quo . Good thing the framers saw that eventually there could be a need for a convention of the states to introduce and pass amendments .

Quote:

---

Either way, the electors were no longer free agents doing what was best fort the nation.

---

The electors are appointed by the states to do the state's bidding as expressed in the laws of the states Every elector is certified by the state before the college meets in mid December after the election. Stolen or otherwise ,Trump officially lost when the electors met in December . Electors are NOT free agents and never have been . In rare cases an elector goes off the reservation and becomes "faithless" . Faithless electors can be punished by the states depending on their laws . SCOTUS already decided in 'Chiafalo v Washington' that states laws that punish or replace faithless electors is constitutional .

Quote:

---

California has almost 40,000,000 population. Wyoming has less than 600,000. Both states have an equal number of electoral college votes that are based on number of senators. Two votes apiece. Eliminating the Electoral College eliminates the disparity. I am open to having my view changed.

---

Electors are proportional to a state's population (# of Congressional Reps and Senators )Wyoming and California do not have the same number of electors.

I did not say that the electoral college protects the small state . I said the Senate with every state having 2 Senators does. Not as much as it used to before the Federal system began to be diluted with the 17th amendment .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Trump won despite the attempt by Evita and the Obama Adm to steal it .

---

Lol. I'd ask your for facts to support that, but I now know facts are meaningless to you unless they come from QANON.

Quote:

---

go for it . I have some ideas that would make good amendments .

---

go for it.

Quote:

---

Electors are NOT free agents and never have been

---

That was the original intention.

Justice Robert H. Jackson - "No one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated, what is implicit in its text, that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices.

and


However, when electors were pledged to vote for a specific candidate, the slate of electors chosen by the state were no longer free agents, independent thinkers, or deliberative representatives. They became, as Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote, "voluntary party lackeys and intellectual non-entities."

According to Hamilton, writing in 1788, the selection of the president should be "made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station [of president]."Hamilton stated that the electors were to analyze the list of potential presidents and select the best one. He also used the term "deliberate." Hamilton considered a pre-pledged elector in violation of the spirit of Article II of the Constitution insofar as such electors could make no "analysis" or "deliberate" concerning the candidates.

Quote:

---

Electors are proportional to a state's population (# of Congressional Reps and Senators )Wyoming and California do not have the same number of electors.

---

Yes. I'm aware of that. I didn't think it was necessary to write that. I was comparing the senatorial disparity. I should have phrased it more clearly.

Quote:

---

I said the Senate with every state having 2 Senators does (protects the small state).

---

That was my point. Leave the senate as is, but amend or eliminate the Electoral College.

Justice Jackson's remarks were written in the dissenting opinion. But writing for the Court, Justice Reed said this. "“We conclude that the Twelfth Amendment does not bar a political party from requiring the pledge to support the nominees of the National Convention. Where a state authorizes a party to choose its nominees for elector in a party primary and to fix the qualifications for the candidates, we see no federal constitutional objection to the requirement of this pledge."

He also wrote, “It is true that the Amendment says the electors shall vote by ballot. But it is also true that the Amendment does not prohibit an elector’s announcing his choice beforehand, pledging himself. The suggestion that in the early elections candidates for electors— contemporaries of the Founders—would have hesitated, because of constitutional limitations, to pledge themselves to support party nominees in the event of their selection as electors is impossible to accept. History teaches that the electors were expected to support the party nominees. Experts in the history of government recognize the longstanding practice. Indeed, more than twenty states do not print the names of the candidates for electors on the general election ballot. Instead, in one form or another, they allow a vote for the presidential candidate of the national conventions to be counted as a vote for his party’s nominees for the electoral college. This long-continued practical interpretation of the constitutional propriety of an implied or oral pledge of his ballot by a candidate for elector as to his vote in the electoral college weighs heavily in considering the constitutionality of a pledge, such as the one here required, in the primary.”“However, even if such promises of candidates for the electoral college are legally unenforceable because violative of an assumed constitutional freedom of the elector under the Constitution, Art. II, § 1, to vote as he may choose in the electoral college, it would not follow that the requirement of a pledge in the primary is unconstitutional. A candidacy in the primary is a voluntary act of the applicant. He is not barred, discriminatorily, from participating but must comply with the rules of the party. Surely one may voluntarily assume obligations to vote for a certain candidate. The state offers him opportunity to become a candidate for elector on his own terms, although he must file his declaration before the primary. Ala. Code, Tit. 17, § 145. Even though the victory of an independent candidate for elector in Alabama cannot be anticipated, the state does offer the opportunity for the development of other strong political organizations where the need is felt for them by a sizable block of voters. Such parties may leave their electors to their own choice.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...ctoral-college

Justice Robert H. Jackson ? appointed in the Truman years .I'll raise you Article 2 Sec 2

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.

The word appoint confers on state legislatures the broadest power of determination. " "Therefore, on reference to contemporaneous and subsequent action under the clause, we should expect to find, as we do, that various modes of choosing the electors were pursued, as, by the legislature itself on joint ballot; by the legislature through a concurrent vote of the two houses; by vote of the people for a general ticket; by vote of the people in districts; by choice partly by the people voting in districts and partly by the legislature; by choice by the legislature from candidates voted for by the people in districts; and in other ways, as, notably, by North Carolina in 1792, and Tennessee in 1796 and 1800. No question was raised as to the power of the State to appoint, in any mode its legislature saw fit to adopt, and none that a single method, applicable without exception, must be pursued in the absence of an amendment to the Constitution. (McPherson v Blacker 1892)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Justice Robert H. Jackson ? appointed in the Truman years .I'll raise you Article 2 Sec 2

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.

The word appoint confers on state legislatures the broadest power of determination. " "Therefore, on reference to contemporaneous and subsequent action under the clause, we should expect to find, as we do, that various modes of choosing the electors were pursued, as, by the legislature itself on joint ballot; by the legislature through a concurrent vote of the two houses; by vote of the people for a general ticket; by vote of the people in districts; by choice partly by the people voting in districts and partly by the legislature; by choice by the legislature from candidates voted for by the people in districts; and in other ways, as, notably, by North Carolina in 1792, and Tennessee in 1796 and 1800. No question was raised as to the power of the State to appoint, in any mode its legislature saw fit to adopt, and none that a single method, applicable without exception, must be pursued in the absence of an amendment to the Constitution. (McPherson v Blacker 1892)

---

The difficulties Jackson and Hamilton raised continue to exist. Hamilton considered Article 2 being violated by pre-pledged electors. I agree with Hamilton. We'll have to leave it at that.

Hamilton was also a monarchist who wanted an elected royal executive .His vision of a strong central government is what eventually evolved in the 20th century .Oh he made the case for the Consititution in his prolific authorship of most of the Federalist Papers . But at the convention he argued for what he called a “governor,” one with far reaching powers and a lifetime appointment as long as he remained in “good behavior.” (They skip that part in the play. )

Yes the debate we have is as old as the founding ,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Yes the debate we have is as old as the founding ,

---

I believe the American experiment in representative democracy is at crisis stage.

As an Independent and observer of both parties, it's pretty clear that the Republican Party has consistently put party over country. I first noticed this in the 90's when Clinton was impeached on foolish grounds re his personal sex life.

From McConnell's position on Merrit Garland to the present filibuster deadlock, it gets worse over time. I won't go into further details. They're well-known to anyone paying attention.

The main culprit is the Repub party, but I won't deny the Dems are equally capable of bad governance when the shoe fits.

Has Churchill's famous statement proven to be correct? "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest"?

A parliamentary form has the advantage of reducing the personality factor of a presidential candidate in favor of forcing the voter to consider the issues as represented by the party. However, there are disadvantages also.

The level of freedom we are able to exercise has produced the most powerful economy on the planet, and yet there is complaining, complaining, complaining. It's perplexing. The lib dems are the party of 900K dead babies every year. Nuff said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

The lib dems are the party of 900K dead babies every year. Nuff said.

---

That should make you happy! -- the lib dems are erasing themselves.

It makes you happy. It distresses me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

It makes you happy. It distresses me.

---

You're jumping up and down with joy that the dems are so stoopid to kill themselves, whereas the repubs refuse abortion.

Unsurprisingly, that makes no sense whatsoever other than your admission that a procedure you refuse to stand against is "killing". What a confession. The truth usually comes out eventually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Unsurprisingly, that makes no sense whatsoever other than your admission that a procedure you refuse to stand against is "killing". What a confession. The truth usually comes out eventually.

---

Wasn't my admission. I was quoting you. 'Bye.

Quote:

---

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/custom...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by tomder55 https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/custom...post-right.png
Trump won despite the attempt by Evita and the Obama Adm to steal it .



Lol. I'd ask your for facts to support that, but I now know facts are meaningless to you unless they come from QANON.

---

I have no idea what QANON does or says . I have presented the facts about the 2016 election many times . It is now not even debatable that Evita's campaign in collaboration with the Emperor's Justice and Intel agencies ;and assisted by the press created a false narrative about Trump in bed with Putin to steal the election .

It is also indisputable that the 20202 election was rigged to favor Quid's victory by a
"well funded cabal of powerful people ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information” " Time Mag detailed that in a post election summary . These powerful elites, funded by Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, embeded left-wing activists into election offices to assist the Dems with their 'get-out-the-vote' efforts ,change election rules in the middle of the campaign , and the Dems’ push for mail-in balloting. Zuckerberg's behind the scenes efforts were not just to influence the outcome but was in fact an effort to put people from Quid's camp or who favored his campaign into state government positions that administer the vote . Covid was their pretext justification for the administrative rigging ,

The Secret Bipartisan Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election | Time

Quote:

---

"well funded cabal of powerful people ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information”

---

There is nothing more dangerous for our future than what you have just described. The liberal takeover of both the news media and most universities is alarming. The Biden admin's recent announcement of a campaign of intimidation against parents who have the temerity to question school board policies by pointing out, for instance, that a school library has books promoting the sexual exploitation of boys by grown men is another step in the direction of a heavy handed central government.

Quote:

---

It is now not even debatable that Evita's campaign in collaboration with the Emperor's Justice and Intel agencies ;and assisted by the press created a false narrative about Trump in bed with Putin to steal the election .

---

The evidence is so clear that only the intentionally blind still question it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I have no idea what QANON does or says . I have presented the facts about the 2016 election many times . It is now not even debatable that Evita's campaign in collaboration with the Emperor's Justice and Intel agencies ;and assisted by the press created a false narrative about Trump in bed with Putin to steal the election .

---

You may remember QANON as the far right wacko outfit that claimed Clinton ran a cannibalistic child-kidnapping ring out of a DC pizza shop. Only a Trump cultist could swallow such a yarn.

You have NOT "presented facts many times about the 2016 election". If you had, a simple link would have been provided. What you did was state your OPINION which was inaccurate.

You further state/claim that "It is now not even debatable that Evita's campaign in collaboration with the Emperor's Justice and Intel agencies ;and assisted by the press created a false narrative about Trump in bed with Putin to steal the election." Of course, it's debatable. Only the fringe right claims it's not debatable. Here's an excellent link describing the events from back then. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...it-to-the-fbi/ Unfortunately, it's a fact-checker so I presume you will not bother reading it.

Quote:

---

It is also indisputable that the 20202 election was rigged to favor Quid's victory

---

Indisputable? You must be kidding! I had no idea you were part of the Trump BS about the election being rigged. And here I thought these exchanges might provide some light on our respective positions but your belief in something so untrue - having been disproven by 60+ courts, the SC, Trump's followers like AG Barr, McConnell, unhinged lawyers like Giulianni and Powell, and many, many audits and recounts - that it staggers the imagination.

Quote:

---

..."well funded cabal of powerful people ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information” " Time Mag detailed that in a post election summary

---

That quote, that you claim was "detailed" by a post-election summary, is so misleading that you again surprise me. Anyone who reads your link, as I did, will discover that the Time article criticizes Trump for all his dissembling and lying - hardly supporting his false contention that the election was stolen.

What the article accomplishes is a detailed analysis how the Democrats planned to defend a fair and honest election from Trump's pre-election announcement that he wouldn't accept a defeat since that was proof of Democratic rigging. We all know how Trump illegally tried to reverse the vote counts in Georgia and elsewhere. Without planning to ensure a fair election, Trump might have succeeded.

Quote:

---

Covid was their pretext justification for the administrative rigging

---

No comment.

The link below is included here for anyone interested.

The Secret Bipartisan Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election | Time[/QUOTE]

yeah the author puts lipstick on a pig . I stand by my interpretation. She unconvincingly whitewashes what the cabal did ;calling what they did “fortifying” instead of rigging . word play . What she confirmed was that the election was neither free nor fair . Many of the changes made to state laws were unconstitutional ;especially in the key battle ground state of Pennsylvania