Auto-Save Draft feature temporarily disabled. Please be sure you manually save your post by selecting "Save Draft" if you have that need.

Biden vs Trump 2020 - vote now and discuss!

1333334335337339

Comments

  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 21,584
    Biden
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Rank choice voting requires the elimination of the electoral college,  unless you want every election decided in the house.  It's a pipe dream 
    I'm not talking about just the Presidential here. You can get there if you start bottom-up. States need to change the way they vote.
    I see.  Yes, it can be used in local elections (Maine?), but I'm cynical on the presidential side
    I mean you're doing the same thing - awarding the EC votes to the winner of a state's election. Yes, Maine used it for the Presidential, too.

    I don't see the downside in rewarding the candidate with the broadest appeal instead of the one that fans flames.
    so you're saying you wouldn't necessarily need a majority to get the EV's.  You could do it at 28% for example.  Yeah that would not be a violation of the Constitution.  There is no requirement today that the EV winner in the state receives a majority, only that the president has a majority of EVs. 
  • Jearlpam0925Jearlpam0925 Deep South PhillyPosts: 13,584
    Biden
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Rank choice voting requires the elimination of the electoral college,  unless you want every election decided in the house.  It's a pipe dream 
    I'm not talking about just the Presidential here. You can get there if you start bottom-up. States need to change the way they vote.
    I see.  Yes, it can be used in local elections (Maine?), but I'm cynical on the presidential side
    I mean you're doing the same thing - awarding the EC votes to the winner of a state's election. Yes, Maine used it for the Presidential, too.

    I don't see the downside in rewarding the candidate with the broadest appeal instead of the one that fans flames.
    so you're saying you wouldn't necessarily need a majority to get the EV's.  You could do it at 28% for example.  Yeah that would not be a violation of the Constitution.  There is no requirement today that the EV winner in the state receives a majority, only that the president has a majority of EVs. 
    You would get to a majority. That' the whole point of RCV. Are you conflating majority with plurality?
  • Jearlpam0925Jearlpam0925 Deep South PhillyPosts: 13,584
    edited January 7
    Biden
    And I think the states dictate how their EVs are proportioned out. Usually, winner take all.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 21,584
    edited January 7
    Biden
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Rank choice voting requires the elimination of the electoral college,  unless you want every election decided in the house.  It's a pipe dream 
    I'm not talking about just the Presidential here. You can get there if you start bottom-up. States need to change the way they vote.
    I see.  Yes, it can be used in local elections (Maine?), but I'm cynical on the presidential side
    I mean you're doing the same thing - awarding the EC votes to the winner of a state's election. Yes, Maine used it for the Presidential, too.

    I don't see the downside in rewarding the candidate with the broadest appeal instead of the one that fans flames.
    so you're saying you wouldn't necessarily need a majority to get the EV's.  You could do it at 28% for example.  Yeah that would not be a violation of the Constitution.  There is no requirement today that the EV winner in the state receives a majority, only that the president has a majority of EVs. 
    You would get to a majority. That' the whole point of RCV. Are you conflating majority with plurality?
    No but is that really a valid definition of majority?  It's like a waterfall majority.
  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 3,734
    Biden
    And I think the states dictate how their EVs are proportioned out. Usually, winner take all.
    Yes.  If they wanted to, I think they could just have their state legislatures vote (I think that's how it was originally done), but I'm not 100%.  You don't need to win a majority of a state's votes to take its EVs. States can use the Maine/Nebraska model (two EVs for the statewide winner and one EV for the winner of each district). They could probably distribute the popular vote on proportionality, i.e., 40% of the vote in a state with 10 EVs gets 4 Evs. 

    So I think that a state could do rank-choice and say the winner (Plurality) gets the votes. Or they could it like Maine/Nebraska and give two to the statewide winner and one each in the districts.
    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 21,344
    Biden
    OnWis97 said:
    And I think the states dictate how their EVs are proportioned out. Usually, winner take all.
    Yes.  If they wanted to, I think they could just have their state legislatures vote (I think that's how it was originally done), but I'm not 100%.  You don't need to win a majority of a state's votes to take its EVs. States can use the Maine/Nebraska model (two EVs for the statewide winner and one EV for the winner of each district). They could probably distribute the popular vote on proportionality, i.e., 40% of the vote in a state with 10 EVs gets 4 Evs. 

    So I think that a state could do rank-choice and say the winner (Plurality) gets the votes. Or they could it like Maine/Nebraska and give two to the statewide winner and one each in the districts.

    EC WAS intended to be proportional until Jefferson browbeat Virginia to award him allbthe votes from there.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Jearlpam0925Jearlpam0925 Deep South PhillyPosts: 13,584
    Biden
    Proportional to me would be awarding the EVs by congressional district, which is what Nebraska and Maine do for half of them and the other going to the popular vote winner.
  • Jearlpam0925Jearlpam0925 Deep South PhillyPosts: 13,584
    Biden
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Rank choice voting requires the elimination of the electoral college,  unless you want every election decided in the house.  It's a pipe dream 
    I'm not talking about just the Presidential here. You can get there if you start bottom-up. States need to change the way they vote.
    I see.  Yes, it can be used in local elections (Maine?), but I'm cynical on the presidential side
    I mean you're doing the same thing - awarding the EC votes to the winner of a state's election. Yes, Maine used it for the Presidential, too.

    I don't see the downside in rewarding the candidate with the broadest appeal instead of the one that fans flames.
    so you're saying you wouldn't necessarily need a majority to get the EV's.  You could do it at 28% for example.  Yeah that would not be a violation of the Constitution.  There is no requirement today that the EV winner in the state receives a majority, only that the president has a majority of EVs. 
    You would get to a majority. That' the whole point of RCV. Are you conflating majority with plurality?
    No but is that really a valid definition of majority?  It's like a waterfall majority.
     Is it a majority now?
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 21,344
    edited January 8
    Biden
    Proportional to me would be awarding the EVs by congressional district, which is what Nebraska and Maine do for half of them and the other going to the popular vote winner.

    its my understanding its intended to be strictly on a percentage basis. IE, A candidate garners 60% his opponent garners 40% of a states vote. EC votes are split accordingly. 

    Maine has a  twist to that given its only 2 districts.
    Post edited by mickeyrat on
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Jearlpam0925Jearlpam0925 Deep South PhillyPosts: 13,584
    Biden
    mickeyrat said:
    Proportional to me would be awarding the EVs by congressional district, which is what Nebraska and Maine do for half of them and the other going to the popular vote winner.

    its my understanding its intended to be strictly on a percentage basis. IE, A candidate garners 60% his opponent garners 40% of a states vote. EC votes are split accordingly. 

    Maine has a  twist to that given its only 2 districts.
    https://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine-and-nebraska/
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 21,344
    Biden
    mickeyrat said:
    Proportional to me would be awarding the EVs by congressional district, which is what Nebraska and Maine do for half of them and the other going to the popular vote winner.

    its my understanding its intended to be strictly on a percentage basis. IE, A candidate garners 60% his opponent garners 40% of a states vote. EC votes are split accordingly. 

    Maine has a  twist to that given its only 2 districts.
    https://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine-and-nebraska/
    thats now. was speaking of original intent.

    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • PJNBPJNB New BrunswickPosts: 8,595
    Bernie laying the smackdown right now on CNN on how they failed in 2008-2010 and are going to do better at the start of these next two years. He gets it. 
    PJ
    2013 Worcester 1 & 2
    2016 Quebec, Toronto 2, Fenway 1&2, Wrigley 2
    2018 Prague, Krakow, Berlin, Seattle 2, Wrigley 2, Fenway 1&2 

    EV
    2017 Firenze, Taormina 1 & 2
  • SmellymanSmellyman AsiaPosts: 4,372
    Biden
    PJNB said:
    Bernie laying the smackdown right now on CNN on how they failed in 2008-2010 and are going to do better at the start of these next two years. He gets it. 

    I hope so.

    They need to legislate and prosecute.
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 8,035
    Biden
    Seems there's conflicting reports on whether that officer has died yet. Possibly on life support though.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 26,519
    Biden
    Smellyman said:
    PJNB said:
    Bernie laying the smackdown right now on CNN on how they failed in 2008-2010 and are going to do better at the start of these next two years. He gets it. 

    I hope so.

    They need to legislate and prosecute.
    100%. don't waste time. fuck the GOP
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 21,344
    Biden
    By Amy Gardner and Matt Zapotosky January 12 at 8:06 PM EST The acting U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, whose predecessor abruptly resigned one week ago after President Trump complained officials were not doing enough to find election fraud in the state, declared on a call with his staff Monday that “there’s just nothing to” the few claims of fraud the office was examining, according to an audio recording obtained by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. On the call, Bobby Christine, who also serves as the top federal prosecutor in the Southern District of Georgia, suggested that he was surprised to learn the office had not found significant election fraud issues. “Quite frankly, just watching television, you would assume that you got election cases stacked from the floor to the ceiling,” Christine said, according to the Atlanta newspaper. “I am so happy to find out that’s not the case, but I didn’t know coming in.” A spokesman for Christine’s office declined to comment Tuesday. The Washington Post reported last week that Christine brought with him from the Southern District two prosecutors, Joshua S. Bearden and Jason Blanchard, who previously had been assigned to investigate election fraud matters. He also brought in former federal prosecutor Matt Hart, a lawyer in Birmingham, Ala., who previously handled public corruption cases, on a contract basis, people familiar with the matter told The Post. [New U.S. attorney in Atlanta brings in assistants who worked on election fraud issues, raising fears of political interference] The additions unnerved current and former officials in both the Southern and Northern districts of Georgia, particularly in light of the abrupt resignation of Christine’s predecessor, Byung J. “BJay” Pak. “Mr. Pak’s forced resignation against the backdrop of White House insistence to prosecute purported election offenses is then followed by the curious appointment of an outsider who immediately brings in election prosecutors from outside the district — it all gives rise to a ready inference that the newcomers are willing to pursue what was troubling enough to cause Mr. Pak to resign,” said John Horn, a former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia. Christine said on the call with the Northern District staff that he brought the two election fraud prosecutors to tackle what he expected would be a “dump truck full” of election files. Instead, he found “very, very few” and dismissed two cases on his first day in office. “We don’t have these huge colossal issues that if you turn on the TV, you’d think it’d be,” he said. A Justice Department official said Tuesday that the two attorneys Christine brought from the Southern District had returned to their home office. Trump had been upset with what he perceived as a lack of Justice Department action on his unfounded claims in Georgia and across the country, according to people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to described the president’s views. Precisely how that played into Pak’s resignation was unclear, but two people familiar with the matter said he received a call from the Office of Deputy Attorney General, run by Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Richard P. Donoghue, that led him to believe he should resign. The Justice Department has declined to comment on Pak’s departure. His exit came just a day after The Post reported on an call in which Trump urged Republican Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, to “find” enough votes to overturn Trump’s election defeat in the state. In the same conversation, Trump cited a “never-Trumper U.S. attorney” in Georgia — a possible reference to Pak — and hinted vaguely and baselessly that Raffensperger’s refusal to act on his unfounded fraud claims constituted a “criminal offense.” In announcing his departure, Pak released a statement saying that he did “my best to be thoughtful and consistent, and to provide justice for my fellow citizens in a fair, effective and efficient manner.” He has declined to comment further. Christine was then directly installed in the post by Trump — bypassing Kurt Erskine, a longtime federal prosecutor who had been Pak’s top deputy and would have otherwise assumed the role. Officials with the office of the Georgia secretary of state have been saying for weeks that President-elect Joe Biden’s narrow victory in Georgia was free, fair and untainted by widespread fraud. In his Jan. 2 call with Trump, Raffensperger rejected the president’s entreaties to “find the votes” to overturn the results in the state and insisted his assertions about fraud were wrong. [‘I just want to find 11,780 votes’: In extraordinary hour-long call, Trump pressures Georgia secretary of state to recalculate the vote] “This is what we’ve been saying all along,” Gabriel Sterling, a top Raffensperger aide, said Tuesday after the Christine call leaked. “The facts are the facts. The evidence is the evidence. It has clearly shown through multiple law enforcement agencies at the state and federal level that there is simply not enough evidence of widespread voter fraud that would change the outcome of the election.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 21,584
    Biden
    Gym Jordan is currently yelling at me.  Why did I make him so angry?
  • dignindignin Posts: 8,953
    mrussel1 said:
    Gym Jordan is currently yelling at me.  Why did I make him so angry?
    Gym has 2 volume levels, obnoxious and loud obnoxious.
  • MayDay10MayDay10 Posts: 10,907
    Biden
    its amazing that people in congress still delude themselves thinking that they can manage and somehow control Trumpism.  It will wash over them too.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 21,584
    Biden
    dignin said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Gym Jordan is currently yelling at me.  Why did I make him so angry?
    Gym has 2 volume levels, obnoxious and loud obnoxious.
    Did you hear his arguments? They were juvenile and non sequitur.  He was rambling about the Wright Brothers and landing on the moon.  As a native Ohioan and Buckeye die hard,  I'm embarrassed for him. 
  • Jearlpam0925Jearlpam0925 Deep South PhillyPosts: 13,584
    Biden
    Every Republican argument is the same - unity, move forward, somehow this will lead to unprecedented behavior. HA. Yeah, let's just pretend like last week didn't happen and not hold anyone unaccountable. 

    I swear - not only do Republican voters continuously vote against their best interest, but no one holds Republican voters in more contempt than Republican politicians.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 26,519
    Biden
    Every Republican argument is the same - unity, move forward, somehow this will lead to unprecedented behavior. HA. Yeah, let's just pretend like last week didn't happen and not hold anyone unaccountable. 

    I swear - not only do Republican voters continuously vote against their best interest, but no one holds Republican voters in more contempt than Republican politicians.
    interesting how not ONE of them preached unity and understanding and bring down the temperature the last 4 years. 

    hypocrites. the whole lot of them. 
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • Jearlpam0925Jearlpam0925 Deep South PhillyPosts: 13,584
    Biden
    Every Republican argument is the same - unity, move forward, somehow this will lead to unprecedented behavior. HA. Yeah, let's just pretend like last week didn't happen and not hold anyone unaccountable. 

    I swear - not only do Republican voters continuously vote against their best interest, but no one holds Republican voters in more contempt than Republican politicians.
    interesting how not ONE of them preached unity and understanding and bring down the temperature the last 4 years. 

    hypocrites. the whole lot of them. 
    Where was unity and understanding over more than just the last four years. Supreme Court appointments, healthcare, all of it.

    The balls to see Jeff Van Drew get up and speak, too.
  • static111static111 Posts: 2,540
    Biden
    I just hope Biden wins when it’s all said and done....
  • Jearlpam0925Jearlpam0925 Deep South PhillyPosts: 13,584
    Biden
    static111 said:
    I just hope Biden wins when it’s all said and done....
    I don't know what this means.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 26,519
    Biden
    static111 said:
    I just hope Biden wins when it’s all said and done....
    :lol:
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 3,734
    Biden
    static111 said:
    I just hope Biden wins when it’s all said and done....
    Even I know he has now won.

    That said, there are a lot of people that will still try to stop him from being inaugurated. Some of them are debating on the House floor as we speak.
    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley
  • static111static111 Posts: 2,540
    Biden
    static111 said:
    I just hope Biden wins when it’s all said and done....
    I don't know what this means.
    I mean at this point how can we be sure? The president himself led a mob to the capitol and that proves t he election is in doubt right?...*sarcasm* the lowest form of humor
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 21,344
    Biden
    ·
    FEBRUARY 4, 2021, 6:08 AM

    Special Report: Stolen election? Republican lawmakers paralyzed by Trump's false fraud claims

    Chris Kahn, Soyoung Kim, Jason Lange, James Oliphant, Tim Reid

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - On Jan. 6, right after the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, 147 Republican lawmakers voted the way then-president Donald Trump and the rioters had demanded - to overturn his election loss, after months of Trump’s baseless claims that the election had been stolen.

    FILE PHOTO: Republican and Democrats clap while House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) commends Capitol Police and law enforcement for their work after rioters supporting President Donald Trump breached the U.S. Capitol, as the House of Representatives reconvenes to continue the process of certifying the 2020 Electoral College results in Washington, U.S., January 6, 2021. Erin Schaff/Pool via REUTERS

    A month later, the Republican party remains paralyzed by that false narrative. Fully 133 of those lawmakers, or 90%, are now declining to either endorse or repudiate Trump’s continuing insistence that he was cheated by systemic voter fraud, according to a Reuters survey of all 147 lawmakers and a review of public statements they made to explain their votes against certifying the Electoral College results.

    Just two of those lawmakers told Reuters they believed the election was stolen through fraud; two others who did not respond to repeated inquiries made similar public statements previously. Ten of the 147 lawmakers told Reuters they do not believe the stolen-election narrative; they cited unrelated reasons for their failed attempt to invalidate millions of votes.

    (For a graphic on the survey results, click here )

    The refusal by the vast majority of the 147 lawmakers to take a firm stand on the truth of Trump’s central claim underscores the political peril they face as they struggle to appease voters on both sides of a rift in the Republican Party.

    Many Republican lawmakers believe they can’t survive challenges in party primary elections without the votes of Trump supporters who are enraged at any suggestion that he lost a fair election to Democrat Joe Biden, Republican strategists said. The lawmakers also fear losing general elections against Democrats without the votes of more moderate Republicans and independents who are repelled by Trump’s false fraud claims and his alleged incitement of the Capitol insurrection.

    The Reuters survey illuminates a semantic sleight-of-hand many Republican lawmakers have adopted to avoid taking a firm position on stolen-election claims that were discredited by judges in more than 60 lawsuits that failed to overturn the election result. Many lawmakers tried instead to thread a rhetorical needle - saying, for instance, that they would “stand with” Trump to protect “election integrity” or “the Constitution” - while avoiding any mention of Trump’s debunked fraud claims, the Reuters review of their public statements reveals.

    Most lawmakers cited legal arguments that some states’ expansions of mail-in or early voting during the coronavirus pandemic violated the U.S. Constitution – a contention rejected by multiple courts in Trump’s failed challenges to the election result.

    The lawmakers who declined to provide a yes-or-no answer to the Reuters survey included some of the most strident backers of Trump’s bid to overturn the election, such as Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama. Brooks spoke at Trump’s rally before the Capitol riots and encouraged “patriots” in attendance to start “taking down names and kicking ass.” In a Jan. 4 public statement explaining his vote to overturn the election results, Brooks railed against “the largest voter fraud and election theft scheme in American history.” But when asked directly by Reuters if Trump lost because of fraud, Brooks avoided a clear answer. He instead relied on technical arguments involving some states’ voting process changes, saying in a statement that Trump lost because some votes, in his view, were not “Constitution-compliant” and “lawful.”

    While the vast majority of the 147 lawmakers never endorsed Trump’s outlandish fraud allegations, their support of his bid to overturn the election played a crucial role in perpetuating the stolen-election myth that has become a central flashpoint in American politics. The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll on the subject, taken Jan. 20 and 21, shows that 61% of Republicans still believed Trump lost because of election-rigging and illegal voting.

    The lawmakers’ attempt to appease newly polarized camps of voters within the Republican Party “won’t fly” with voters on either side of that divide, said Gabriel Sterling, a top Georgia election official - and a Republican - who has been debunking what he called “nonsensical” election fraud claims since the Nov. 3 vote.

    “They were trying to have their cake and eat it, too,” he said of the lawmakers.

    That won’t work, Sterling said, because future voters will form their opinions on the lawmakers’ actions – their vote to overturn the election – rather than their words explaining their reasons. Both pro- and anti-Trump voters, he said, are going to see “147 people who agree with Trump that the election was stolen.”

    Some Republicans are fed up in the wake of the Capitol riots they believe Trump incited. In one striking example, Reuters reported this week that dozens of Republicans who worked in the administration of former President George W. Bush are leaving the party out of disgust at the failure of most elected Republicans to disown Trump’s attempt to overturn the election.

    (For full story, click reut.rs/3ay9xJ2 )

    Trump’s false fraud claims are likely to figure in his impeachment trial next week in the Senate on a charge of inciting insurrection. Democrats face the steep challenge of convincing 17 Republicans to join in convicting the former president. His lawyers, in a document laying out his defense, have signaled Trump will continue to insist in the proceedings that his stolen-election story is true.

    Republican strategist Alex Conant - a former aide to Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and a former spokesman for the Republican National Committee - said Republican House members largely backed Trump’s bid to overturn the election out of fear of angering his base of voters. But those in more moderate districts - or senators who campaign in statewide races - could pay a heavy political price for their votes against certifying the results.

    That dynamic was evident in the Jan. 5 losses by both Republican candidates in two U.S. Senate races in Georgia, who were perceived as strong backers of Trump’s fraud claims.

    “Any race where independents are a factor, this becomes very awkward,” Conant said. “Senators are much more hesitant to go down the path of election fraud for that reason.”

    FILE PHOTO: Pro-Trump protesters storm the U.S. Capitol to contest the certification of the 2020 U.S. presidential election results by the U.S. Congress, at the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., U.S. January 6, 2021. REUTERS/Ahmed Gaber/File Photo



    continues
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 21,344
    Biden
     

    Most of the 147 lawmakers come from heavily Republican House districts where voters backed Trump by wide margins. But 43 of them hail from more moderate House districts where they won their general election last November by less than 20 percentage points; within that group, 20 of the lawmakers won by less than 10 points.

    Jason Miller, a representative for Trump, did not answer questions from Reuters about its survey results and the refusal of most of the 147 lawmakers to endorse the former president’s stolen-election claim.

    The Biden White House did not respond to requests for comment.

    HAWLEY, CRUZ DENY TRYING TO ‘OVERTURN’ ELECTION

    On Jan. 6, the two houses of the U.S. Congress held votes on whether to accept the Electoral College results from the states of Arizona and Pennsylvania, though members also questioned other states’ elections during the debates. Congressional certification of the results, which occurs in every U.S. presidential election, has almost always been a formality in which members declare a winner after merely counting Electoral College votes previously submitted by each state, based on its popular vote.

    (For a graphic on how the Electoral College works, click tmsnrt.rs/3lUKcgv tmsnrt.rs/3lUKcgv )

    The 147 Republicans who voted to reject the two states’ results included 139 House members - about two-thirds of the party’s House caucus - and 8 of the 51 Republican senators serving at the time in the 100-member chamber.

    Reuters asked the office of every lawmaker who voted against the certification of Electoral College results a single question at the heart of the political crisis: Do you believe that Donald Trump lost the election because of voter fraud? Reporters then followed up with each office to seek a yes-or-no answer and additional comment.

    The vast majority - 133 - either declined to answer or did not respond to repeated inquiries. Reuters also reviewed all the lawmakers’ public statements and Twitter postings explaining their votes. For some members, Reuters also reviewed public statements and speeches at a rally Trump held just before the riot and on the floor of Congress before the vote on the election results.

    The two senators who led the coalition of Senate objectors - Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley - both avoided directly endorsing Trump’s fraud claims even as they pushed for a special commission to investigate them. Both have faced backlash from corporate donors and moderate Republicans in the wake of the riots, as have many of the lawmakers who voted to reject Electoral College results.

    A spokesman for Cruz declined to answer the Reuters survey question or to provide additional comment. Representatives for Hawley did not respond to repeated inquiries.

    Hawley, outside the Capitol on Jan. 6, raised his fist in solidarity with protesters as they demanded that the “traitors” in Congress unseat Biden and install Trump. Yet after that protest devolved into a deadly riot, Hawley made no fraud claim in explaining his vote against the election results on the Senate floor. He instead focused solely on the argument that the Pennsylvania legislature in 2019 - which was then, as now, controlled by Republicans - violated the state constitution by expanding mail-in voting.

    That’s the same argument from a failed lawsuit filed by Pennsylvania Congressman Mike Kelly and other plaintiffs. The state Supreme Court called the suit’s timing “beyond cavil” - meaning petty - noting that plaintiffs waited until after Trump lost to object to a law the state legislature passed in 2019, with bipartisan support, and to seek the “extraordinary” remedy of nullifying 6.9 million votes. The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition to review the state court decision.

    Both Cruz and Hawley, echoing many other lawmakers, have said they never intended to overturn the election.

    “Let me be clear,” Cruz said in his speech inside the Capitol on the day of the riots. “I am not arguing for setting aside the result of this election.”

    Days earlier, Cruz gave a different answer when pressed on the goal of his support for the idea of appointing an investigative commission into electoral fraud. Fox News host Maria Bartiromo asked him: What happens if the commission finds fraud?

    “Then the results would have to be set aside,” he said, arguing that the nation’s founders gave Congress the ultimate power to determine “what counts as a valid vote.”

    ‘ABSURD’ LEGAL ARGUMENTS

    After the riots, Cruz condemned Trump’s stolen-election rhetoric as reckless even as the senator continued to defend his vote to overturn the results. Trump never proved his claims of “massive fraud” or that the election was “stolen everywhere,” Cruz said in his podcast, the Verdict, on Jan. 23. “That’s not responsible, and you’ve never heard me use language like that.”

    Conant, the Republican strategist, said such careful and contradictory positioning may not insulate the lawmakers who voted to overturn the results from blowback in future elections.

    “Nuance is rarely a successful message in politics,” Conant said. “Whenever politicians try to be lawyerly or have it both ways, they end up turning off more people.”

    In interviews and public statements, some of the 147 lawmakers now say their objections had nothing to do with voter fraud. More than 80 of them have cited one particular constitutional argument. They contend that, in battleground states Trump lost, state courts and election officials violated the U.S. Constitution by making procedural changes such as expanding mail-in voting or extending vote-counting deadlines without a vote of their state legislature.

    Slideshow (6 Images)

    That theory was rejected by judges ruling on some of the lawsuits filed by Trump and his allies, including a federal judge in Wisconsin who said it lacked “common sense.” Lawrence Douglas - a legal scholar who called the argument “absurd” - said such procedural changes by state election officials or courts are “quite routine,” and regularly delegated by state legislatures to election administrators.

    Douglas, an election law specialist at Amherst College, said the passage of the Constitution cited by lawmakers - Article 2, section 1 - says only that state legislatures should determine “the manner” in which electors are chosen, such as by popular vote, as happens in every U.S. state. Process changes such as extending a mail-in ballot deadline have “nothing to do with changing the way electors should be chosen,” Douglas said.

    HOW DEMOCRACY FAILS

    Only a handful of the 147 lawmakers are explicitly backing Trump’s stolen-election claims. The two that told Reuters they believed voter fraud robbed Trump of victory are House members Paul Gosar of Arizona and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia.

    Two others - House members Louie Gohmert and Ronny Jackson, both of Texas - did not respond to the Reuters survey but have explicitly claimed in other public statements that Trump lost because of voter fraud. A handful of other lawmakers have publicly alleged widespread fraud but did not claim, in their statements explaining their votes, that the alleged fraud was extensive enough to change the election’s outcome.

    Greene declined an interview request. A spokesman, Nick Dyer, confirmed that she believes the election was stolen. Greene said Trump “won by a landslide” in one recent video and made other similar statements.

    Newly elected in November, Greene has taken a hail of criticism since joining Congress for her history of making allegedly anti-semitic statements and endorsing a host of outlandish conspiracy theories. The debunked theories she has embraced include QAnon, which holds that elite Democrats are part of a cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles and cannibals.

    Gosar spokeswoman Jessica Lycos said the Arizona congressman “strongly believes” the election was stolen from Trump, though she added that “we can’t explain how it happened.” Gosar, she said, is convinced that statistical anomalies in Arizona’s election data suggest that hundreds of thousands of ballots had been altered or miscounted.

    Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, called that claim one of many “vague” conspiracy theories that Gosar has promoted. Such baseless claims, she said, undermine “the foundation of our democracy.”

    Most of the 10 Republican lawmakers who now say they don’t believe Trump lost a rigged election had previously issued relatively mild statements that avoided any direct allegation of fraud. But one of them - Rep. Madison Cawthorn, newly elected from North Carolina - made a speech at Trump’s rally on Jan. 6, firing up the crowd to “fight” the election result just before the storming of the Capitol.

    “The Democrats - with all the fraud they have done in this election - the Republicans hiding and not fighting, they are trying to silence your voice!” Cawthorn shouted in the speech. “They have no backbone!”

    Cawthorn spokesman Micah Bock told Reuters: “Rep. Cawthorn cannot prove fraud.” Bock said Cawthorn instead relied on the same constitutional theory most of his colleagues cited in explaining their votes.

    Only Republican leaders can restore voters’ confidence in the security of U.S. elections, and only by firmly repudiating Trump’s fraud claims, said Nicholas Valentino, a University of Michigan political science professor.

    “We’ve seen in many other countries how democracy fails,” he said, “and it fails most often in this way - because electoral outcomes are not considered legitimate by the citizens themselves.”

    (Refiles to fix typo in paragraph 8.)

    Reporting by Chris Kahn, Soyoung Kim, Jason Lange, James Oliphant and Tim Reid; additional reporting by Brian Thevenot and Tom Hals; writing by Brian Thevenot; editing by Soyoung Kim and Brian Thevenot


    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Sign In or Register to comment.