Republican mindset at work

[detroit]

Earlier today, I pointed out on a local newstalk forum that Bush could "win" the election by pressuring states controlled by the GOP officeholders to cast their Electoral votes for Bush regardless of who wins the popular vote in those states.

Such a strategy would be perfectly legal and technically Constitutional, if unethical.

I asked GOPers to say how they'd feel if Bush tried that.

What is AMAZING to me is that NOT ONE GOPer said that he or she would abandon their support for Bush even in that case.

[trotsky]

1. Actually each party chooses a slate of electors.

And whichever candidate wins the state, his party's electors are then the state's electors. At least that's how I understand it.

Pretty telling though about their reactions...

[ikojo]

17. You're correct.

[Walt Starr]

2. Constitutionally, they have only eleven days to do it in.

They must alter their state laws regarding the choosing of electors and then meet on November 2 to choose them if they are to do this.

Sorry, but it's in the constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 4.

[detroit]

3. Not my understanding

My understanding is that, based on recent Supreme Court rulings, states can indeed throw out the popular vote and send a different slate of Electors to the EC.

[July]

5. And if they do, do you think people will stand for it?

Whether it's "technically" legal or not, if we have a second election determined by the SC instead of by the people, "the will of the people" will be dead, officially. And I don't believe that everyone who's been working for change and all of those people going out by the thousands to Kerry rallies are going to put up with it.

[Walt Starr]

6. You're wrong. There are no such rulings.

Sorry, but quite frankly, you're full of shit.

Read the fucking constitution. congress sets teh day of the choosing and that's the November 2 this year. Any state legislaature that has not already altered teh methodology for choosing electors has 11 days to do so. They cannot alter the method after the day of the choosing of electors.

[detroit]

7. Why be abusive?

I'll look this up. But my understanding was that the Supreme Court rulings make it at least theoretically possble for state legislatures to choose any electors they want. If I am wrong, I am wrong. But I don't have to take your abuse.

[Vickers]

8. Aw don't worry about it, Walt is a kitten

Meow!

[Walt Starr]

9. Because you're spreading bullshit

and I called you on it.

[Q]

11. Actually...there are precedents for this

....several times in history electors have voted for the candidate who didn't win the popular vote. Some states have no laws preventing this.

[Walt Starr]

14. The electors CAN do this in 24 states

but the legislature CANNOT go back and change the way of choosing electors AFTER the electors have been chosen, which is what was suggested originally.

Any state legislature CAN within the next eleven days, decide that they have the authority to choose the electors, have it signed by their governor, then meet on November 2 to choose those electors, but as of November 2, they no longer have that power over this election.

[never cry wolf]

10. Walt, some states may not have to change their laws

I don't recall the details fully but in Florida in 2000, while the dimson v. Gore case was in front of SCOTUS, the Fla. legislature hatched a plan to vote for the repuke electors, no matter the SCOTUS ruling. I believe that the state legislature must confirm and approve the electors, and a repuke legslature can do what they will.

I don't know if this applies to all stated but that was the way it was in florida in 2000, even if Gore won in the SC, the votes were counted and he won that, jebbie set it up so their electors would go for bunnypants anyway.

on edit: as soon as I finish this post, there at the top of the forum page was this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2527443

[detroit]

12. That was what I thought

So Walt should calm down.

[never cry wolf]

13. Walt's cool, just a misunderstanding is all

Tensions are high, nerves are frayed. We should all relax, it's only the future of our species, lol.

[Walt Starr]

16. They had to scuttle that plan because it was ILLEGAL

See my post below where I cite the constitution and the U.S. code.

[Walt Starr]

15. And that plan was blatantly unconsititutional on it's face

and here's the proof, first straight from the constitution:

Article II.

Section 1.

Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Clause 4: The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

and now from the United States Code:

Title 3

Chapter 1

Section 1. Time of appointing electors The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.

Section 7. Meeting and vote of electors The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment at such place in each State as the legislature of such State shall direct.

Therefore, under the constitution and the law, the several states have the power to determine the method of choosing electors in any manner they deem appropriate UNTIL THE TUESDAY AFTER THE FIRST MONDAY IN NOVEMBER! After that, any attempt to alter the manner of the choosing of the electors is blatantly unconstitutional on its face!

[PROGRESSIVE1]

4. The Fascist Republican Party will do ANYTHING to.....

steal this election!!!