Trump himself consents to transition
-
@jon-nyc said in Trump himself consents to transition:
The point of contention isn’t whether you’ve ever mentioned it. This is your claim from yesterday:
Even jon pretended not to understand it happened.
That’s false.
Ok then you were unaware it happened. I guess the MSM did its job in covering it up, even to the extent a detailed follower of politics like you was unaware of this attempted breach of fundamental political norms by your own side.
-
Our Supreme Court even weighed in on the 2016 faithless electors.
No one talked about democracy in peril then. LOL. God if they say it enough it becomes true right? That’s the new science.
-
Our Supreme Court even weighed in on the 2016 faithless electors.
No one talked about democracy in peril then. LOL. God if they say it enough it becomes true right? That’s the new science.
@loki said in Trump himself consents to transition:
Our Supreme Court even weighed in on the 2016 faithless electors.
No one talked about democracy in peril then. LOL. God if they say it enough it becomes true right? That’s the new science.
And that story misrepresents the motivations of the electors. Just says they refused to vote for Hillary, as if they hated Hillary. It’s no wonder so few of us understand the true motivations. The media covered it with a pillow. On some level even TDS sufferers are ashamed of themselves. But they feel snug and safe that they have herd immunity from public shaming.
-
I don't understand - if they were supposed to vote for Hillary, and didn't, how is that trying to steal the election for the Democrats?
-
I don't understand - if they were supposed to vote for Hillary, and didn't, how is that trying to steal the election for the Democrats?
@doctor-phibes said in Trump himself consents to transition:
I don't understand - if they were supposed to vote for Hillary, and didn't, how is that trying to steal the election for the Democrats?
They didn’t vote for Trump instead. They voted for someone they thought the republicans might be amenable to, in the hopes the republican electors would follow the lead of faithlessness. They got 2 Trump electors, so it didn’t fail completely.
This motivation was admitted to by one of the faithless dem electors in an interview.
-
I read up in this a bit. Most states have a mechanism to force a faithless elector to change their vote. Only a few have no proscribed action for a faithless elector.
A faithless elector is something that states can pretty much legislate out of existence (and most have - it just remains a symbolic thing).
But it feels different than saying that the election itself is a fraud. To allow the existence of faithless electors is in someway a deliberate choice by states.
Voter fraud is a different beast. It’s a subversion of the rules themselves. Feels like a beast you don’t want to feed.
-
I read up in this a bit. Most states have a mechanism to force a faithless elector to change their vote. Only a few have no proscribed action for a faithless elector.
A faithless elector is something that states can pretty much legislate out of existence (and most have - it just remains a symbolic thing).
But it feels different than saying that the election itself is a fraud. To allow the existence of faithless electors is in someway a deliberate choice by states.
Voter fraud is a different beast. It’s a subversion of the rules themselves. Feels like a beast you don’t want to feed.
@xenon said in Trump himself consents to transition:
I read up in this a bit. Most states have a mechanism to force a faithless elector to change their vote. Only a few have no proscribed action for a faithless elector.
A faithless elector is something that states can pretty much legislate out of existence (and most have - it just remains a symbolic thing).
But it feels different than saying that the election itself is a fraud. To allow the existence of faithless electors is in someway a deliberate choice by states.
Voter fraud is a different beast. It’s a subversion of the rules themselves. Feels like a beast you don’t want to feed.
This is all a bunch of nonsense in reality but it’s worth a discussion when folks start hyperventilating about democracy being threatened and just how close we came. It’s like grow up.
-
I read up in this a bit. Most states have a mechanism to force a faithless elector to change their vote. Only a few have no proscribed action for a faithless elector.
A faithless elector is something that states can pretty much legislate out of existence (and most have - it just remains a symbolic thing).
But it feels different than saying that the election itself is a fraud. To allow the existence of faithless electors is in someway a deliberate choice by states.
Voter fraud is a different beast. It’s a subversion of the rules themselves. Feels like a beast you don’t want to feed.
-
@xenon no commentary on the attempt to establish a coalition of faithlessness by powers on the left who hated Trump?
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@xenon no commentary on the attempt to establish a coalition of faithlessness by powers on the left who hated Trump?
Well - that’s a matter of political philosophy.
The US system has a bunch of “undemocratic” ethos built into it.
The founders did not like direct democracy. The senate started as an appointed, not elected body.
Having people in the process who “know better” was part of the design.
The electoral college itself is a “hybrid” democratic institution. Skews pretty “representative” to the side of representative democracy.
Not necessarily a subversion from that lens.
FWIW - I don’t think pure democracy is necessarily a good thing.
-
@xenon no commentary on the attempt to establish a coalition of faithlessness by powers on the left who hated Trump?
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
by powers on the left
Wikipedia:
The faithless electors who opposed Donald Trump were part of a movement dubbed the Hamilton Electors co-founded by Micheal Baca of Colorado and Bret Chiafalo of Washington.
-
So you would have had no political issue with it had the scheme succeeded? No feeling that political norms had been violated?
Education is extremely important.
-
So you would have had no political issue with it had the scheme succeeded? No feeling that political norms had been violated?
-
Are you talking to me? I would definitely have had a problem with it had it succeeded. I would have been upset had it been backed by the Democratic establishment.
-
I think your attempt to present this as a Democratic establishment effort to deny him the presidency falls flat.
This was a stunt organized by a huffpo columnist and a handful of actors. Nothing at all comparable to the current moment.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
I would suggest we go back to 2016/17 on the old board to see how much attention we gave it. That is a reasonable proxy for how big a threat to democratic order this really was.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
So you would have had no political issue with it had the scheme succeeded? No feeling that political norms had been violated?
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
So you would have had no political issue with it had the scheme succeeded? No feeling that political norms had been violated?
When you give people in the process agency (electors) you have to be realistic about how much impact they can actually have.
If this were a super close election - and 1-2 electoral votes mattered, and there were faithless electors from states that could actually award partial electoral college vot
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@jon-nyc that was for xenon. For you, I would ask what the point of the wiki link is?
If it actually mattered? (As in the electoral votes were close, and faithless electors were from a state that could actually cast partial ballots, etc.)
Then that’d be horrible. But I also think that the electoral college is antiquated - so I’d think this was doubly horrible.
The thing is - this had very little practical effect and no serious person backed this (I’d be surprised if a candidate assumed office with a “faithless” vote in their favor).
Trump is different. He wants to change the results based on bullshit and 10’s of millions of people agree with him and believe the bullshit.
