"Electoral contest results in this Commonwealth is in dispute": Pennsylvania House, Draft Resolution

[Subduction Zone]

"U.S. Supreme Court: In Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar ... Active"
"Pennsylvania Supreme Court: The Trump campaign appealed a Philadelphia County Board of Elections decision ... Active"
"Wisconsin Supreme Court: In Wisconsin Voters Alliance v. Wisconsin Election Commission ... Active"
"Minnesota Supreme Court: In Kistner v. Simon ... Active"
(source)

Etc.

The first example was settled. I did not check further.

REPUBLICAN PARTY OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BOOCKVAR


Out of the 40 some cases filed I read yesterday that at least 39 were denied or thrown out yesterday. And most of these were nothing burger cases. Stick a fork in it, this election has been done for quite some time now.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You clearly have something to say, no need to lead into it by questioning me.

I do indeed have something to say, which is why I said it:

Do you think he's doing any of this for you?

 

[Larniavc]

They know exactly who Trump is, and some choose him for what we think he can do for us.

That’s possibly to most shudder inducing statement I’ve seen in a long time.

 

[Kentonio]

Again, just funny.

People can and do think for themselves. They know exactly who Trump is, and some choose him for what we think he can do for us. Nothing so sinister is taking place.

The delusion is yours in thinking others are deluded..

People very rarely think for themselves, which is why marketing and propaganda are both very powerful tools that have been proven to work in the real world. It just makes people feel smarter to claim they’re above it and not influenced by other people.

News flash, none of us are above it, none of us are ‘too smart’ to be influenced by propaganda, and the fact you’re still talking about the election supposedly being rigged despite the complete lack of any evidence of such shows that you’re just as susceptible to it as anybody else.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I do indeed have something to say, which is why I said it:

Do you think he's doing any of this for you?

He didn't say, not to personally.

 

[Kenny'sID]

People very rarely think for themselves,

Do you?

 

[ananda]

efforts ... are anti-democratic.

It should be anti-democratic. It is not the democratic will of the mob that should prevail at the end, but the Republic's Rule of Law.

 

[ananda]

The first example was settled. I did not check further.

REPUBLICAN PARTY OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BOOCKVAR


Out of the 40 some cases filed I read yesterday that at least 39 were denied or thrown out yesterday. And most of these were nothing burger cases. Stick a fork in it, this election has been done for quite some time now.

You are in error. Your link points to a denial of a specific writ of certiorari (from Oct 28) in the case, but the case as a whole continues on:

Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar - SCOTUSblog

 

[Hans Blaster]

It should be anti-democratic. It is not the democratic will of the mob that should prevail at the end, but the Republic's Rule of Law.

I think you've fallen for that "Republic not a democracy" nonsense.

A republic is a government without hereditary leadership.
A democracy is a government where leaders are selected or decisions made by a vote of the people.

The US is a republic based on representative democracy.

 

[ananda]

I think you've fallen for that "Republic not a democracy" nonsense.

A republic is a government without hereditary leadership.
A democracy is a government where leaders are selected or decisions made by a vote of the people.

The US is a republic based on representative democracy.

I am pointing to the fact that the U.S. is a republic based on the Rule of Law, not merely the vote of the people:

"a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law" (source)

 

[MIDutch]

It should be anti-democratic. It is not the democratic will of the mob that should prevail at the end, but the Republic's Rule of Law.

It's not democracy, per se, that is the problem.

It is how it is implemented.

The whole idea behind a (Platonic) republic is that the masses are too ignorant to know what is best for them, and that an educated, intelligent, experienced ruling class (the philosopher king) is better suited to knowing what is best for the city/state.

Unfortunately, in a hybrid democracy, such as the United States, you have (a more educated, intelligent population) electing a ruling class (who may or may not have the best interests of the population at heart), who then elect a ruler, and you can still end up with an incompetent, corrupt, criminal fool like trump as the head of government.

 

[ananda]

Unfortunately, in a hybrid democracy, such as the United States, you have (a more educated, intelligent population) electing a ruling class (who may or may not have the best interests of the population at heart), who then elect a ruler, and you can still end up with an incompetent, corrupt, criminal fool ...

The rule of law in a republic should provide for the removal of corrupt, criminal fools, whether leftist or rightist or anyone else.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I am pointing to the fact that the U.S. is a republic based on the Rule of Law, not merely the vote of the people:

And taking away the will of the people and their right to choose their leaders and representatives after they voted is neither in holding with the rule of law or democracy.

Even if everything that has been said about state and local election officials bending the rule to allow people to vote or make it easier were true, those voters voted under the assumption that the vote they cast was legal and valid as they followed the rules and instructions of the appropriate officials is violation of their rights as voters to choose government officials.

 

[ananda]

And taking away the will of the people and their right to choose their leaders and representatives after they voted is neither in holding with the rule of law or democracy.

Even if everything that has been said about state and local election officials bending the rule to allow people to vote or make it easier were true, those voters voted under the assumption that the vote they cast was legal and valid as they followed the rules and instructions of the appropriate officials is violation of their rights as voters to choose government officials.

It is yet to be fully determined if said votes were cast according to the Rule of Law of the Republic - the Laws authorized by the citizens of the Republic to govern themselves. If they were, then they should count. If they weren't, then they shouldn't count.

 

[Pommer]

Then don't be patient. Continuing to go on about Trumps efforts just seems useless to me, but whatever floats your boat.

Almost as useless as Trump’s efforts themselves?

 

[MIDutch]

The rule of law in a republic should provide for the removal of corrupt, criminal fools, whether leftist or rightist or anyone else.

Or, they can be kicked out of office through a democratic election.

 

[Pommer]

The rule of law in a republic should provide for the removal of corrupt, criminal fools, whether leftist or rightist or anyone else.

We have such in the United States but it requires that the Party (lead by the corrupt leader) not be corrupt as well.

 

[ananda]

Or, they can be kicked out of office through a democratic election.

Yes, a democratic election ... governed by the rule of law.

 

[ananda]

We have such in the United States but it requires that the Party (lead by the corrupt leader) not be corrupt as well.

That is supposedly remedied by checks and balances in the government, which is now in motion through lawsuits, etc.

 

[Pommer]

That is supposedly remedied by checks and balances in the government, which is now in motion through lawsuits, etc.

Well, we can all see how well that seems to be going!