Let me introduce you to inmate No. P01135809

Well according to him and his attorneys he meant those votes that existed and we covered up. That number he gave to look for was not the exact amount he needed it was the amount he and others thought existed but was hidden.

 

It is past time for the United States to put 2016 and 2020 in the rearview mirror and move forward. The United States cannot move forward if all the Republican and Democratic Parties are going to do from now is relitigate and relitigate and relitigate and relitigate the past.

Neither major party is making any noticeable effort toward restoring sound money, balancing the federal budget, or dealing with the soon-to-be $33 trillion national debt.

But they certainly seem able to find plenty of time to investigate each other and argue over past history, while they allow present problems to grow and fester.

 

That would be nice but it will leave in place the evils that were done and need to be exposed. Only and until then can we leave it in the past.

 

In your scenario, then the United States is doomed to be continually handcuffed to the past never able to move forward. Your attitude is no different than those pushing for reparations based on past slavery in the United States. Different subjects, same attitude - we must fix the past before we can move forward, sort of like a secular form of penance as in the Catholic Church.

 

No JonC, the dueling electors is not “fraud”. It has happened before, it is not a crime. It hasn’t worked before, it didn’t work this time, it’s not a crime to try.

Do you remember the lib campaign in 2016 to convince electors not to cast their votes for DT, even though he won? By the current standard Dems have in place, that is a crime, election interference and a fraud on the American people.

I have agreed DT lost. I even agree he acted inappropriately during the transition.

But these folks want to put him in prison for the rest of his life because he saw irregularities in the election and refused to concede.

Actually, no, they have wanted to put him in prison for the rest of his life since he came down that escalator at Trump Tower.

peace to you

 

Of course I do, that was in the middle of a conversation about doing recounts and verifying signatures. They were telling him it wouldn’t matter, even if there was fraud, because the margin was too high. He said he only needed 22,000 votes (or whatever it was) to convince them a recount could make a difference. He never ask anyone to cheat or make up ballots.

peace to you

 

Yeah, politics is a blood sport!! Or so I have heard.

peace to you

 

"Over 58 elections, 165 electors have not cast their votes for president or vice president as prescribed by the legislature of the state they represented. Of those:

• 71 electors changed their votes because the candidate to whom they were pledged died before the electoral ballot (in 1872 and 1912).
• 1 elector chose to abstain from voting for any candidate (in 2000).
• 93 were changed typically by the elector's personal preference, although there have been some instances where the change may have been caused by an honest mistake.

Usually, faithless electors act alone, although on occasion a faithless elector has attempted to induce other electors to change their votes in concert, usually with little if any success.

One exception was the 1836 election, in which all 23 Virginia electors acted together, altering the outcome of the electoral college vote but failing to change the outcome of the overall election. The Democratic ticket won states with 170 of the 294 electoral votes, but the 23 Virginia electors abstained in the vote for vice president, meaning the Democratic nominee, Richard M. Johnson, received 147 votes or exactly half of the electoral college (one short of being elected). Johnson was subsequently elected vice president by the U.S. Senate."

"As of 2020, 33 states and the District of Columbia have laws that require electors to vote for the candidates for whom they pledged to vote, though in half of these jurisdictions there is no enforcement mechanism. In 14 states, votes contrary to the pledge are voided and the respective electors are replaced, and in two of these states they may also be fined. Three other states impose a penalty on faithless electors but still count their votes as cast.

Colorado was the first state to void an elector's faithless vote, which occurred during the 2016 election. Minnesota also invoked this law for the first time in 2016 when an elector pledged to Hillary Clinton attempted to vote for Bernie Sanders instead. Until 2008, Minnesota's electors cast secret ballots. Although the final count would reveal the occurrence of faithless votes, it was impossible to determine which electors were faithless. After an unknown elector was faithless in 2004, Minnesota amended its law to require public balloting of the electors' votes and invalidate any vote cast for someone other than the candidate to whom the elector was pledged.

Washington became the first state to fine faithless electors after the 2016 election, in the wake of that state having four faithless elector votes. In 2019, the state changed its law for future elections, to void faithless votes and replace the respective electors instead of fining them.

In California a faithless elector may face a fine or imprisonment for up to 3 years for casting a faithless vote."

- from Faithless elector - Wikipedia

 

Good info. Anything in “dueling” electors? Or “competing electors”

peace to you

 

Ok, well you say it hasn’t happened before, and then acknowledge it has happened before, but the circumstances were different. Right..

The difference is DT tried it, which makes it illegal. Others tried it, but it’s not illegal for them.

I get, It depends on who try’s it.

peace to you

 

Naw. Never see anything about that. I have heard "Dueling Banjos", though.

 

Sweet. Just saw an old Letterman clip with Steve Martin and a banjo player doing dueling banjos. Very funny

You know, that would be a great addition to this thread, representing both arguments….

peace to you

 

We can disagree. The challenge will be to prove whatever was done with these alternative electors, that were never certified or counted, was illegal.

Saying, “they committed fraud on the American people by creating alternative electors” doesn’t meet the legal standard of proof of a crime, imo.

peace to you

 

Just to add, as JonC has already acknowledged, this has occurred in the past when one party or the other contest elections.

It only became a “crime” this time because DT was involved (or not).

peace to you