Arizona and Texas want to be able to overturn election results

[rambot]

Proposed bill would give Arizona Legislature authority to override popular vote

MSN


It's so strange because the VAAAST majority of voter fraud cases are perpetrated by Republicans and yet they want to overturn election results for fraud?

It seems like those thoughts from the last couple decades that the right have an interest in getting rid of democracy are coming to a much closer version of fruition.

Actually seems super messed up that Kern, with his involvement with the J6 election fake electors hootenanny, can just carry on in his position of government.

The idiots did a POOR job of trying to steal the election so they are trying to find a better way to do so I guess.

 

[Bradskii]

Proposed bill would give Arizona Legislature authority to override popular vote

MSN


It's so strange because the VAAAST majority of voter fraud cases are perpetrated by Republicans and yet they want to overturn election results for fraud?

It seems like those thoughts from the last couple decades that the right have an interest in getting rid of democracy are coming to a much closer version of fruition.

Actually seems super messed up that Kern, with his involvement with the J6 election fake electors hootenanny, can just carry on in his position of government.

The idiots did a POOR job of trying to steal the election so they are trying to find a better way to do so I guess.

It's going nowhere:

'He was among the lawmakers who signed onto a document falsely claiming to be one of Arizona’s electors for former President Donald Trump. The Arizona Attorney General’s Office confirmed Kern and the other fake electors were under investigation last year.'

 

[wing2000]

If the Legislature passes the resolution, it will then go on November's ballot for voters to decide if it should be added to the State Constitution.

I doubt this will go anywhere in the State legislature. Even the MAGA republicans understand voters will soundly reject any attempt to take away our voting power.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Proposed bill would give Arizona Legislature authority to override popular vote

MSN


It's so strange because the VAAAST majority of voter fraud cases are perpetrated by Republicans and yet they want to overturn election results for fraud?

It seems like those thoughts from the last couple decades that the right have an interest in getting rid of democracy are coming to a much closer version of fruition.

Actually seems super messed up that Kern, with his involvement with the J6 election fake electors hootenanny, can just carry on in his position of government.

The idiots did a POOR job of trying to steal the election so they are trying to find a better way to do so I guess.

Completely unnecessary....they already can.

 

[JSRG]

It's going nowhere:

'He was among the lawmakers who signed onto a document falsely claiming to be one of Arizona’s electors for former President Donald Trump. The Arizona Attorney General’s Office confirmed Kern and the other fake electors were under investigation last year.'

Yes, based on the article this is just a bill submitted by one person, not even forwarded to any committee, let alone heading to an actual vote, let alone that vote having a chance of success, let alone it being passed by referendum. It looks like it's just one person's goofy idea.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Here's another resolution (so non-binding, not a law) from Arizona, that I also assume has not passed at this point. But imagine signing your name to this as if it were a good idea.

1. Whereas, the Arizona legislature wishes to declare its full and
2. 10 complete plenary authority over the manner of the presidential election
3. 11 that is granted to it in article II, section 1, clause 2, Constitution of
4. 12 the United States; and
5. 13 Whereas, history has recently favored the voters themselves voting
6. 14 for presidential electors. The state has the full and complete authority
7. 15 to change the manner of the presidential election at any time and can take
8. 16 back the power to change its manner. The right of the legislature to
9. 17 resume the power of choosing the presidential electors at any time, which
10. 18 constitutes changing the manner of the election, can neither be taken away
11. 19 nor abdicated; and...

Therefore
strike everything after the resolving clause and insert:
"1. To change the manner of the presidential election by appointing the eleven presidential electors to the republican primary winner to offset the removal of a republican candidate from the ballot in Colorado and Maine

 

[variant]

Completely unnecessary....they already can.

Most states would find it difficult because of all the laws they have.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Most states would find it difficult because of all the laws they have.

Well I don't know any state laws which would supercede the Constitution.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-12/

You may notice that it says nothing about any requirement for electors to vote along with the voters they represent.

This isn't an accident, and it's by design. The founding fathers understood the average person knows nothing except the information relevant to the daily life they live. The average voter is supposed to elect the guy who votes on the president and vp. He's supposed to be an educated man who understands politics and the reality of the world. He then votes on the candidates for office...and he will act as a buffer between the average voter and a stupid choice.

Now, if one can look at the obvious insult to the average voter by this system....as well as the pointless nature of voting on "who is smarter than you"....it's not hard to see why we deviated from this system, without any actual changes to the Constitution (tmk) so that people would actually vote and who they voted for mattered.


As it stands though...the electoral college can simply choose whomever they wish, claim to have the authority of the Constitution, and that is pretty much the end of it. In theory (which I'm only saying because it's never happened) 99-100% of the votes could be cast for Biden in 2024, the electoral college could give every vote to Trump....and Trump would legally be the winner.

 

[variant]

Well I don't know any state laws which would supercede the Constitution.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-12/

You may notice that it says nothing about any requirement for electors to vote along with the voters they represent.

This isn't an accident, and it's by design. The founding fathers understood the average person knows nothing except the information relevant to the daily life they live. The average voter is supposed to elect the guy who votes on the president and vp. He's supposed to be an educated man who understands politics and the reality of the world. He then votes on the candidates for office...and he will act as a buffer between the average voter and a stupid choice.

Now, if one can look at the obvious insult to the average voter by this system....as well as the pointless nature of voting on "who is smarter than you"....it's not hard to see why we deviated from this system, without any actual changes to the Constitution (tmk) so that people would actually vote and who they voted for mattered.


As it stands though...the electoral college can simply choose whomever they wish, claim to have the authority of the Constitution, and that is pretty much the end of it. In theory (which I'm only saying because it's never happened) 99-100% of the votes could be cast for Biden in 2024, the electoral college could give every vote to Trump....and Trump would legally be the winner.

It is the electors that are chosen by the voters who can then vote however they wish. The high minded system that the founders tried to implement has never really operated to function this way though, it was basically just a failed experiment.

If it were operating appropriately than people like Trump wouldn't be elected they would be disqualified.

And, yes it is an insult to the average voter. But, what these states are basically trying to say they can do is to choose a slate of electors without referencing the popular vote. This would be illegal in every state as we speak because states have laws that require them to do specifically that. To supersede a state popular vote intention to chose a minority candidate that is both unpopular and less qualified would be the complete opposite of what the constitution is trying to accomplish.

It would accomplish nothing like a republican form of government but would rather be unrepresentative of the public wishes and a perversion of the constitutional attempt to side step demagogues.

 

[JSRG]

And, yes it is an insult to the average voter. But, what these states are basically trying to say they can do is to choose a slate of electors without referencing the popular vote. This would be illegal in every state as we speak because states have laws that require them to do specifically that. To supersede a state popular vote intention to chose a minority candidate that is both unpopular and less qualified would be the complete opposite of what the constitution is trying to accomplish.

You're saying it would be illegal in states to supersede or ignore the popular vote in choosing electors based on current law. Sure. But as the article details, the attempt is to change the law so that the legislature picks the electors instead of the popular vote--as was done in many states in the past, actually, though I think the last time a state did it that way was over 100 years ago. If the bill passes, then doing so wouldn't be illegal, because... well, the law would allow for it!

I doubt this bill will go anywhere to begin with, but your objection here doesn't make much sense.

 

[variant]

You're saying it would be illegal in states to supersede or ignore the popular vote in choosing electors based on current law. Sure. But as the article details, the attempt is to change the law so that the legislature picks the electors instead of the popular vote--as was done in many states in the past, actually, though I think the last time a state did it that way was over 100 years ago. If the bill passes, then doing so wouldn't be illegal, because... well, the law would allow for it!

I doubt this bill will go anywhere to begin with, but your objection here doesn't make much sense.

Indeed they are trying to change the law so that they can overrule the populace.

I doubt people of that state will see this as a great development, nor should any of us.

Essentially a political elite wants to decide who gets the states electoral votes because they don't trust or want to have to answer to the voters.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It is the electors that are chosen by the voters who can then vote however they wish. The high minded system that the founders tried to implement has never really operated to function this way though, it was basically just a failed experiment.

You can say that.

If it were operating appropriately than people like Trump wouldn't be elected they would be disqualified.

So would Biden.

And, yes it is an insult to the average voter. But, what these states are basically trying to say they can do is to choose a slate of electors without referencing the popular vote.

Shall I quote the Constitution again?

This would be illegal in every state as we speak because states have laws that require them to do specifically that.

State laws...refer back to my previous statement about no state laws overriding the constitution.

It would accomplish nothing like a republican form of government

It's enough say it's unpopular. Most who have dreamed about a Republic from Plato to the founders all agree ....

You're unfit to vote.