Thread: Rob Streeper - a USA member here - got the C19 virus

Originally Posted by ian

Today, in a non-woodworking discussion group I saw an election result where all the Republican State Governors -- who collectively control the slate of Electoral College votes -- can ensure Trump's re-election by not allowing their state's Electoral College votes to be counted. The Democrats need 270 EC votes, but if the Republican Governors direct, perhaps I should say persuade, the EC voters to spoil their ballots then the result comes down to a vote in Congress where each state gets just one vote. Trump then wins 26 to 24.

You mean the Federal Congress? Who is the person that votes?

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

You mean the Federal Congress? Who is the person that votes?

Like most things in the US, it's complicated

The 12th Amendment to the US Constitution (which overrides the process set out in the Constitution itself) provides

For an Electoral College to elect the President and Vice-President of the US.
The numbers of members of the Electoral College was "frozen in stone" back in 1911 when the size of the House of Representatives was fixed at a maximum of 435 representatives. The addition of new states (e.g. New Mexico and Arizona in 1912, and Alaska and Hawaii in 1959) and the tripling of the US population since 1911 has largely decoupled Hose representation from State population. In addition to the electors representing the number of Representatives each State is entitled to, each state also gets two votes for each of its two senators.

Importantly, while individual voters in each state get a say in who is elected to the Electoral College, they don't actually vote for the President and Vice President and their decision is not final. The actual decision on how Electoral College votes are applied is up to the person who is State Governor at the time.

So the process of selecting the members of the Electoral College is controlled by the State Governor who in theory governs each state. Currently there are 26 Republican State Governors. The argument presented on the non-woodworking site postulates that if the democratic nominee does NOT secure the 270 Electoral College votes required to ensure election via the Electoral College process, then the Constitution kicks back in and the "president" is selected by the House of Representatives voting one vote per state (50 votes in total) and Trump wins 26 to 24.


It is only a convention that the US populace is allowed to vote for members of the Electoral College who go onto cast votes for the President / Vice President. As far as I can see there is no Constitutional requirement that a State's Electoral College representatives be selected by "the people".

Likewise, as far as I can see, there is no constitutional requirement that the winner takes all system apply to electoral college votes.


The above is separate to the other possibility that the ability of likely democratic leaning voters might be frustrated by lengthy poll delays that do not apply to likely republican leaning voters.

Originally Posted by ian

the Constitution kicks back in and the "president" is selected by the House of Representatives voting one vote per state (50 votes in total) and Trump wins 26 to 24.

The part I can't get hold of is who is the one person per state that votes? A congress-person? If so who determines which 50 of them out of the 435 get to vote? In CA for example, as the most populous state, there are 53 members of Congress. One of them gets to vote and the other 52 don't? Who determines who that one person is?

If it was the Senate I could understand it because it would be the Senior Senator from each state (which may or may not be in Republican hands - the State Governors can easily be a different flavour to the Senators).

In any case, however that scenario might work, if it was taken then a couple of things might happen:
1. The protests over George Floyd may look like a Sunday picnic compared to what might happen if the voting books are effectively cooked, and
2. It seems likely the the Democrats will not only retain the House but also win the Senate as well - currently 2 Independents, 45 Dems, 53 Publicans, so the Dems need to win 5 Senate seat to gain control with Ind support, or 6 for absolute control. That would make another Impeachment extremely likely ASAP, and I doubt they'll have to search too hard for grounds. Being so early in the cycle they could take the proper amount of time this time around, and also control the calling of witnesses in the Senate. To get to a conviction vote of 67 may well still be problematic, as I don't see the Dems picking up around 20 Senate seats (of the 35 up for election, 12 are currently Dems, so they'd have to win 20/23 - nup).

Mind you, there might be enough Publican Senators who have had enough of the BS by then, and are willing to follow Romney's brave example.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

The part I can't get hold of is who is the one person per state that votes? A congress-person? If so who determines which 50 of them out of the 435 get to vote? In CA for example, as the most populous state, there are 53 members of Congress. One of them gets to vote and the other 52 don't? Who determines who that one person is?

as far as I can tell, the decision of who the "House by State vote" is cast for is up to the discretion of the State's Governor.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

If it was the Senate I could understand it because it would be the Senior Senator from each state (which may or may not be in Republican hands - the State Governors can easily be a different flavour to the Senators).

Under the 12th Amendment, each state senator gets to cast one vote for the Vice-President -- therefore the total is 100 votes. And an absolute majority (more than half the Senate membership) is required to confirm the VP.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

In any case, however that scenario might work, if it was taken then a couple of things might happen:
1. The protests over George Floyd may look like a Sunday picnic compared to what might happen if the voting books are effectively cooked

be careful using the words "effectively cooked"

as far as I can see, the States retain significant power and it would all be perfectly legal. And the US tends to favour "black letter law". If something is not explicitly illegal, then it's all a OK.

Originally Posted by ian

as far as I can tell, the decision of who the "House by State vote" is cast for is up to the discretion of the State's Governor.

Well that could get very interesting. There are a number of Publican Governors that have denounced Trump. This list is a bit old I think (some of them are no longer in office - maybe it was after 2016 election?). However, a number of them are still there, and I doubt they have improved their opinion of him....it would only take one dissenter for 25-25, and two for 26-24 t'other way around.

I would be absolutely certain that if he does lose, and concedes defeat, that he will not attend the inauguration of Biden or co-operate with the handover. Doing so would be an act of maturity from a man-child.

This morning I had cause to be writing about so called "Pacific Jarrah" or Manilkara bidentata. It occurred to me it should be Trump's favourite tree...Biden? Tat-a!

Larry Hogan (Maryland Gov, Rep) might just be a fly in Trump's ointment:
The truth about Trump from one Republican governor - The Boston Globe

His term doesn't finish until 2023, but he can't stand again, due to term limits, so he could do as his conscience tells him too without too much fear of recriminations.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Anything to get re-elected. Absolutely ANYTHING.

welcome to politics in the USA. meddling in the last election was overlooked as it was assumed it would sink Trump.

Then it was suddenly an issue worth addressing after the election because of the outcome (though it didn't have anything to do with the outcome).

States here keep their own data, it's not hard to get it if you want to see something from it. I suppose CDC is under direction of the executive branch.

We have three branches here.

The fourth branch (the voting branch) will solve this problem in november.

Originally Posted by ian

Today, in a non-woodworking discussion group I saw an election result where all the Republican State Governors -- who collectively control the slate of Electoral College votes -- can ensure Trump's re-election by not allowing their state's Electoral College votes to be counted. The Democrats need 270 EC votes, but if the Republican Governors direct, perhaps I should say persuade, the EC voters to spoil their ballots then the result comes down to a vote in Congress where each state gets just one vote. Trump then wins 26 to 24.

I've also seen a prediction (on Legaleagle.com ?) where Trump wins by making it too hard for democrat supporting voters to vote. Doing so in a few states would allow Trump to win without "cheating" as the US constitution doesn't guarantee equal access to the ability to vote.

You can ignore that sensationalism, it'll never happen. Trump is down 15 points in the popular vote and you can't win the electoral vote. Hypotheticals about what may happen or "could" be legal are just sensationalist trash. pro wrestling what if type junk.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Larry Hogan (Maryland Gov, Rep) might just be a fly in Trump's ointment:
The truth about Trump from one Republican governor - The Boston Globe

His term doesn't finish until 2023, but he can't stand again, due to term limits, so he could do as his conscience tells him too without too much fear of recriminations.

A republican in maryland isn't really a republican. I don't know how familiar you are with the states, but republicans in maine and maryland aren't really republicans. They're registered republican to avoid running against democrats in primaries.

Maryland is a very wealthy state with only a small rural minority. The state itself is dependent heavily on federal funds and federal contracting. Maine is an oddball state - it's like a different country. Anti business (not a criticism of them, that's just their M.O. up there -everything local and anything that looks corporate is generally kicked out of the state) and individualistic but not in a MAGA type sense - more like in a throwback sense.

Biden is the next president. I wish the DNC would've taken candidate selection a little bit more seriously - we've had too many elderly and virtue signal politicians lately.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

..
so he could do as his conscience tells him too without too much fear of recriminations.

That's a quaint notion, and very naive.

Originally Posted by ian

be careful using the words "effectively cooked"

as far as I can see, the States retain significant power and it would all be perfectly legal. And the US tends to favour "black letter law". If something is not explicitly illegal, then it's all a OK.

The reality of how it works is this:
* 48 states cast all of their electoral votes for the majority or plurality winner in an election
* maine and nebraska have slightly different rules (neither has many electoral votes).

Win the electoral college, and you win the election. The hoopla about this or that delegate turning, etc, is just that. If biden just stays quiet, he wins easily because all of the delegates in swing states will go the opposite direction vs. last election.

Citizens in states will not tolerate anything else with their electoral votes other than what was done before.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

...Romney's brave example.

That's funny, too. Romney, Bushes and Trump all hate each other. They have since primaries of the last election.

Romney and his relatives made money stripping value of every company they've come across away from all of the people who work for the companies so they can retain that value for themselves or establish an increased profit pattern and upsell the company on a follow-up deal (which permanently eliminates the employees and workers chance of ever being treated like humans again).

He's not that virtuous.