If the dems don't control the house, they will do this again
Even if the Dems control the House, they will do this again.
The way it works is you sow enough chaos to invalidate the Electoral College count. If you pull that off, the President is chosen by the House.
But the vote in the House isn't one member, one vote... oh, no no no... it's one STATE one vote.
So California with all it's 52 Representatives? 1 vote. New York? 1 vote.
Since there are more red states than blue states, that would throw the election to the Republican.
Source?
I’ve never heard one state one vote. If it was the senate, 2 votes 2 states would make sense, but the House of Representatives never runs on a per state basis that I know of (maybe ratifying the constitution I guess, but that’s not a House only process).
12th amendment
Thanks, it looks like the blue states might be able to stop it by denying a quorum (2/3rds of states). Unless there 34 red states?
But in chusing [sic] the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote;
Jesus fucking Christ, our constitution is so flawed, it's not even funny.
What an antiquated, garbage document. It needs some thorough updating or we need to start from scratch.
It was designed to be specifically undemocratic in a couple of situations. The intent, of course, is that Congress could block populist or extremist candidates from the presidency. But that depends on the legislature not being composed of complete imbeciles.
We should think about it in the context of the US being the first modern democracy, and they had to fight off criticism from royalists that democracy would lead to mob rule by uneducated peasants.
That, plus the fact that at least half the people involved in writing it wanted to make sure the institution of slavery was protected.
It makes a lot more sense from those perspectives. Given that neither of these premises are true today, there's a very good reason to question the validity of the whole thing.
Except that if we started over and wrote the Constitution from scratch, we'd be the United States of Walmart.
Aren't we already there? We need to start over.
Believe it or not, no. It could be a lot worse. The government is a thin layer protecting us from corporitocracy. It often fails, but getting rid of it isn't going to make things any better.
We're still several steps above Russia, for now.
Which CAN be done. It takes 34 states to call for a convwntion, and IIRC 27 or 28 already have... buuut... they're red states.
So if you want a Christo-Fascist constitution, you're in luck!
THEN it has to be RATIFIED by 38 states to take effect.
I don’t disagree with you in principle, but I also do not trust our elected officials anywhere to amend it at this point in history
It isn't a flaw, it is by design. The constitution was designed to bring states together, not people. The things in it that give favor to states with larger populations were only put in to appease the states with larger populations. so it is only as much as was needed.
Also, to ratify the constitution they voted... one vote per colony. Only needed 9 of 13.
Yep. Was always a deal with the devil.
Thanks, TIL, though it’s actually superseded by the 12th amendment as another commenter noted, but contains the same text.
Looks like the Blue states could not show up to the vote and prevent a quorum, which should stop the vote:
in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. [emphasis Wikipedia’s]
So we could end up with a President Harris. If the Dems have the courage to stand up to an attempted highjack of electoral votes by the house.
That indicates that a quorum can be reached with just one member from each state. Every state has a derpy representative from cookoo-land.
There’s actually a path even if the Republicans lose the House. All they have to do is “contest” enough of the House elections for Mike Johnson to refuse to swear in the Democrats until it gets “all sorted out”… conveniently after the presidential certification.
Oh wow, who would have guessed that the lifetime liar and cheat was going to lie and cheat?
I mean, he actually did tell the truth that he wouldn't accept a loss.
I mean, who would have guessed. Of course the velveeta baboon was planning to do that. The number of scalliwags eager to help him and their thorough dishonesty is somewhat shocking though.
Link to the emails if anyone is interested. Fair warning, it's 1,439 pages long.
...the Legislature should decree that the voters of Wisconsin, due to malfeasance by election officials, have FAILED TO MAKE A CHOICE in the manner directed by the Legislature which delegated the appointment process to voters.
...Doing so doesn't disenfranchise voters. It's clear that citizens have no right to vote for president. And it's clear that if a Legislatures chooses to let citizens vote for president, the voting has to be done in the manner the Legislature directed -- not in some other manner, manipulated by a particular political party for partisan advantage. So it logically follows that partisan election officials go too far over the line, the election just doesn't count.
...What I like about this setup is that there would be no effort to get the Legislature to override the will of the people. The Legislature would merely active proactively, to fill a possible vacuum that might end up existing, if a court later rules that the election itself violated Article II.
Doing so doesn’t disenfranchise voters. It’s clear that citizens have no right to vote for president.
"They're not disenfranchised if they don't have the right in the first place." Imagine writing those sentences together unironically and thinking you're very smart.
Not just thinking that you're smart. But also sending that to other lawyers and judges and then those people also think you're smart!
These people are so far gone that I don't know how we ever recover from this as a country.
I just hope they’re better prepared this time.
duh
That feels like a weird article to be an opinion article, anybody else feel like that's an odd editorial choice?
I'm soooo shocked.
msnbc dot com slash opinion
It literally says opinion in the headline. It's even the very first word!!!
So what's your point?
Well I, at least, would really appreciate proof to back up such a headline. If there's clear intent here we can bonk some annoying fox pundits.
If there was proof it wouldn't be an opinion. But we all know Republicans had those fake electors now. So it's not like there isn't any evidence of these shenanigans at all.
I think it's pretty solidly established by now that Trump will cheat as much as he can to win, and even start a civil war if he could get his followers to do it. What part of malignant narcissist is it that you don't get?
Oh, I completely agree - but it'd be really nice if there was some hard evidence that'd force the Supreme Court to do their damn job.
No hard evidence is going to force the supreme Court to do anything they don't want to do.
The conservative majority simply do not care for evidence, facts, the constitution or precedent.
These are the pieces that feel like they're designed to be dramatic, and push that feeling onto the readers. They're not fact-based pieces, yet still get published alongside fact-based pieces on MSNBC. They're then posted on targeted social media, where it typically isn't checked for facts.
LUCKILY this headline says it's an opinion, but take notice of how many headlines here don't have it, but link to opinions.
These are the pieces that feel like they’re designed to be dramatic, and push that feeling onto the readers.
WTF? So you object to an opinion piece that is clearly labeled to being published at all? Or you object the fact that some other opinion pieces aren't labeled as such which has nothing at all to do with this post?
They’re not fact-based pieces, yet still get published alongside fact-based pieces on MSNBC.
Have you ever read a newspaper? Opinions, marked as such, have been published right along news since long before you or I were born.
Do you expect opinions to be put on a entirely separate website? Perhaps a brand new .opinion domain suffix should be made because you think that understanding an opinion piece clearly labeled as such is actually opinion is too much of a strain.
Yes, I believe opinion pieces should be labeled appropriately and possibly placed on a separate community. Not sure why that's such a controversial thought.
Not sure why that’s such a controversial thought.
Really? You're not sure? Let me spell it out for you.
You are repeatedly doing your whining about a post that is labeled as OPINION in the title. It is the very first word and you're in a Politics community (for fuck's sake) where damn near everything is opinion. What's more, you want everyone else on Lemmy to follow your instructions and place posts you object to in a separate community. That kind of arrogance is astounding.
Donnie literally said the only way he loses is if Democrats cheat, and that was back in August of 2020. Projection as usual.
He said that in his run against Clinton.
also 2020
If the dems don't control the house, they will do this again
Even if the Dems control the House, they will do this again.
The way it works is you sow enough chaos to invalidate the Electoral College count. If you pull that off, the President is chosen by the House.
But the vote in the House isn't one member, one vote... oh, no no no... it's one STATE one vote.
So California with all it's 52 Representatives? 1 vote. New York? 1 vote.
Since there are more red states than blue states, that would throw the election to the Republican.
Source?
I’ve never heard one state one vote. If it was the senate, 2 votes 2 states would make sense, but the House of Representatives never runs on a per state basis that I know of (maybe ratifying the constitution I guess, but that’s not a House only process).
12th amendment
Thanks, it looks like the blue states might be able to stop it by denying a quorum (2/3rds of states). Unless there 34 red states?
I posted the citation in this comment.
US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 3.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_3:_Electoral_College
But in chusing [sic] the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote;
Jesus fucking Christ, our constitution is so flawed, it's not even funny.
What an antiquated, garbage document. It needs some thorough updating or we need to start from scratch.
It was designed to be specifically undemocratic in a couple of situations. The intent, of course, is that Congress could block populist or extremist candidates from the presidency. But that depends on the legislature not being composed of complete imbeciles.
We should think about it in the context of the US being the first modern democracy, and they had to fight off criticism from royalists that democracy would lead to mob rule by uneducated peasants.
That, plus the fact that at least half the people involved in writing it wanted to make sure the institution of slavery was protected.
It makes a lot more sense from those perspectives. Given that neither of these premises are true today, there's a very good reason to question the validity of the whole thing.
Except that if we started over and wrote the Constitution from scratch, we'd be the United States of Walmart.
Aren't we already there? We need to start over.
Believe it or not, no. It could be a lot worse. The government is a thin layer protecting us from corporitocracy. It often fails, but getting rid of it isn't going to make things any better.
We're still several steps above Russia, for now.
Which CAN be done. It takes 34 states to call for a convwntion, and IIRC 27 or 28 already have... buuut... they're red states.
So if you want a Christo-Fascist constitution, you're in luck!
THEN it has to be RATIFIED by 38 states to take effect.
I don’t disagree with you in principle, but I also do not trust our elected officials anywhere to amend it at this point in history
It isn't a flaw, it is by design. The constitution was designed to bring states together, not people. The things in it that give favor to states with larger populations were only put in to appease the states with larger populations. so it is only as much as was needed. Also, to ratify the constitution they voted... one vote per colony. Only needed 9 of 13.
Yep. Was always a deal with the devil.
Thanks, TIL, though it’s actually superseded by the 12th amendment as another commenter noted, but contains the same text.
Looks like the Blue states could not show up to the vote and prevent a quorum, which should stop the vote:
So we could end up with a President Harris. If the Dems have the courage to stand up to an attempted highjack of electoral votes by the house.
That indicates that a quorum can be reached with just one member from each state. Every state has a derpy representative from cookoo-land.
There’s actually a path even if the Republicans lose the House. All they have to do is “contest” enough of the House elections for Mike Johnson to refuse to swear in the Democrats until it gets “all sorted out”… conveniently after the presidential certification.
Oh wow, who would have guessed that the lifetime liar and cheat was going to lie and cheat?
I mean, he actually did tell the truth that he wouldn't accept a loss.
I mean, who would have guessed. Of course the velveeta baboon was planning to do that. The number of scalliwags eager to help him and their thorough dishonesty is somewhat shocking though.
Link to the emails if anyone is interested. Fair warning, it's 1,439 pages long.
https://app.box.com/s/ifis7hu74dz6xp0awkq567ygetrvcof1/file/1460147704477
Pages 81 and 82 are interesting. From Cheesebro:
"They're not disenfranchised if they don't have the right in the first place." Imagine writing those sentences together unironically and thinking you're very smart.
Not just thinking that you're smart. But also sending that to other lawyers and judges and then those people also think you're smart!
These people are so far gone that I don't know how we ever recover from this as a country.
I just hope they’re better prepared this time.
duh
That feels like a weird article to be an opinion article, anybody else feel like that's an odd editorial choice?
I'm soooo shocked.
msnbc dot com slash opinion
It literally says opinion in the headline. It's even the very first word!!!
So what's your point?
Well I, at least, would really appreciate proof to back up such a headline. If there's clear intent here we can bonk some annoying fox pundits.
If there was proof it wouldn't be an opinion. But we all know Republicans had those fake electors now. So it's not like there isn't any evidence of these shenanigans at all.
I think it's pretty solidly established by now that Trump will cheat as much as he can to win, and even start a civil war if he could get his followers to do it. What part of malignant narcissist is it that you don't get?
Oh, I completely agree - but it'd be really nice if there was some hard evidence that'd force the Supreme Court to do their damn job.
No hard evidence is going to force the supreme Court to do anything they don't want to do.
The conservative majority simply do not care for evidence, facts, the constitution or precedent.
These are the pieces that feel like they're designed to be dramatic, and push that feeling onto the readers. They're not fact-based pieces, yet still get published alongside fact-based pieces on MSNBC. They're then posted on targeted social media, where it typically isn't checked for facts.
LUCKILY this headline says it's an opinion, but take notice of how many headlines here don't have it, but link to opinions.
WTF? So you object to an opinion piece that is clearly labeled to being published at all? Or you object the fact that some other opinion pieces aren't labeled as such which has nothing at all to do with this post?
Have you ever read a newspaper? Opinions, marked as such, have been published right along news since long before you or I were born.
Do you expect opinions to be put on a entirely separate website? Perhaps a brand new .opinion domain suffix should be made because you think that understanding an opinion piece clearly labeled as such is actually opinion is too much of a strain.
Yes, I believe opinion pieces should be labeled appropriately and possibly placed on a separate community. Not sure why that's such a controversial thought.
Really? You're not sure? Let me spell it out for you.
You are repeatedly doing your whining about a post that is labeled as OPINION in the title. It is the very first word and you're in a Politics community (for fuck's sake) where damn near everything is opinion. What's more, you want everyone else on Lemmy to follow your instructions and place posts you object to in a separate community. That kind of arrogance is astounding.
Hope that helps.