Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)
- Thread starter Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)
- Start date
- Status
But wait, that's not against the Constitution, its simply inconvenient for Trump voters who want to throw out millions of Biden votes and - HEY WAIT A MINUTE! Oh, you got me!
Article 2 section 1:
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.
Nothing about governors making up rules on the fly.
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.
And the Governor Wolf didn't appoint his own slate of Electors.
Wow. Wolf made it into the constitution. Those forefathers must had really good precognition
Pretty sure there isn't much about how to run elections in here either.
Are we now claiming the rules to mitigate the effects of Covid-19 on the elections are 'on the fly'?
They were really good at predicting white guys in high office, its true!
And Texas was wrong. Not only did they not have legal standing to tell another state how to run their elections, Texas itself allowed for extra mail in ballots because of Covid, and admitted in the suit they wouldn't have brought the action if Trump had won. Meaning they're actually okay with rules to help protect voters from Covid, so long as Trump still wins. They only took issue after Biden won.
Last edited:
That's not the proper perspective when considering judicial decisions. The organization of the government here is the legislature makes the rules, the executive enacts the rules, the judiciary interprets the rules.
When legislature writes laws, you ask "what of that is against the constitution"? In fact, that's the courts job, to determine what is and isn't against the laws established by the constitution and legislature.
The courts are supposed to act when the law has been violated. You understand the states are largely allowed to conduct their elections as they see fit. The PA legislature has large discretion on what the election laws for the state are. The court should not be involved unless those laws are in conflict with state or federal constitutions or existing law.
Like, I'm perfectly willing to entertain the idea that ballots put in the mail by election day should count. My problem with the court isn't the idea of the policy they ordered. It's that they ordered it. Not in response to election laws being illegal as written. Nothing in the federal or state constitutions dictates we have to count late mail-in ballots. The court shouldn't be able to just decide that because they want to. But they did, literally because the Democratic Party asked them to. Like, look at this:
Pennsylvania Democrats notch key election-related court wins
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Pennsylvania’s highest court gave the Democratic Party a series of victories Thursday in the presidential battleground state, relaxing deadlines in its fledgling mail-in voting law, approving more ballot collection sites and kicking the Green Party’s presidential candidate off
apnews.com
The Democratic majority of the court decided, because the Democratic Party asked them to, to extend the deadline (because of conspiracy theories that Trump was going to stop the mail, lest we forget that nonsense), to keep open de facto early voting stations, and to kick the Green Party candidate off the ballot for faxing paperwork instead of delivering the original copy. (That last one, a lower court had said "ok, just let them hand in the originals now, problem solved", and they overturned that.)
Seriously, these people acted like scum. Partisan scum. It's really infuriating.
Since the only way to ever get you to agree with me is to make it not about Republicans, maybe you'll agree with me in defense of the Green Party this time. Deal?
Seriously, total scumbags.
As many complaints as I've made about the Governor here (and his stupid jeeps), this one's not on him.
A party that can't get its paperwork in on time and/or in the right format doesn't deserve to stand.
Ah... so like everyone else. Organised beforehand at the appropriate time with no rush.
Ah me, simpler times. When the black and women folk knew their place, and we called Injins what they were, Target Practice. Now we got all this commotion and goings-on with Detroit voters and spinsters thinking they have a right to be heard! Hard to imagine why any sorta' folk would vote against the Republicans and returning to a simpler way of life.
I think it's funny enough that the Texas AG is still under indictment for fraud (securities) himself, and has just been accused by eight Texas prosecutors of bribery and abuse of office.
It feels like you couldn't make this shit up.
He's also claiming this was all done on the fly... which Texas did too. If you didnt 'quickly' change some laws around elections this year, you should be put up for charges of negligence. Because Covid.
Under this AG's understanding, every state made new election rules on the fly this year... Which means it was never actually about 'making laws on the fly'
At what point does this become "yelling 'FIRE' in a theatre"?
This is literally turning idiots into terrorists.
www.npr.org
This is literally turning idiots into terrorists.
Right-Wing Embrace Of Conspiracy Is 'Mass Radicalization,' Experts Warn
Terrorism analysts warn that the country's polarization isn't just damaging to U.S. politics — it's a national security threat.
www.npr.org
- Status