But how does that abridge the right to vote for a voter in TX if this is happening in PA? If there’s a legal way for PA to change state election law so that the legislature can choose who gets the state’s electoral votes vs some illegal shenanigans happening in the sate, what difference does it make to the voter in TX?
The legislature choosing today would not be tolerated. So that’s off the table in terms of relevance. Again, pretty simple concept, an illegal vote cancels a legal one.
Doesn’t matter what would be tolerated. Constitution says the state can decide how to choose its electors. So how does that change things?
In PA, sure. But an illegal vote in PA doesn’t cancel a legal vote in TX. In fact, a vote in TX is worth more than a vote in PA thanks to the electoral college.
Exactly! On a state level, those who have had their legal vote canceled by an illegal vote, have had an abridgement via a cancelation of their vote.
Additionally, as noted in How the Supreme Court Caused the Riot at the Capitol
“The question was not how Pennsylvania conducted “its” election, as the Court wrongly characterized the issue. The allegations went to the constitutional legitimacy of election procedures in a presidential election in which voters in both Texas and Pennsylvania participated. If one state may illegally manipulate votes in a presidential election, the influence of all the other states that do play by the rules is undermined. The Court was essentially saying that one team has no interest in whether the other team is cheating.”
Indeed, if a particular state, say Pennsylvania, cheats by cancelling out the votes of a particular candidate, its tainted Electoral College vote then has the effect of canceling out another State’s Electoral College vote.
Justice Douglas was absolutely spot on when he wrote: when acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state “they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain”
JWK
There can be no “unity” between socialist Leaders who lure voters with a piece of free government cheese, and Leaders who support and defend rights associated with property ownership, a meritocracy and a free market, free enterprise system!
Right, on the state level. Doesn’t affect a voters in another state.
You keep repeating basically the same thing over and over again without actually showing how the voter in one state has their right to vote abridged because of an illegal vote in another state. How would the situation be different and not an abridgement of that TX voter’s right to vote if PA state law was such that the PA legislature could choose their electors regardless of who won the popular vote in the state?
lol, this is not a mic drop situation (also, for the sake of audio engineers everywhere, please don’t drop mics)
Are you purposely being obtuse?
I wrote:
Indeed, if a particular state, say Pennsylvania, cheats by cancelling out the votes of a particular candidate, its tainted Electoral College vote then has the effect of canceling out another State’s Electoral College vote.
To put it in crayon for you, if the State of Pennsylvania adds a million illegal votes to its federal electoral process tally, then every other state has their legal votes diminished by a million votes, and is thus an infringement with respect to their voting.
JWK
When it comes to healthcare and helping the needy, our socialist Democrat Party Leadership has no moral compass whatsoever. They refuse to make the distinction between CHARITABLE GIVING and tax tyranny to support the health care needs of millions of illegal entrants and foreign aliens.
No, I’m pointing out the flaw in your argument.
How does that work within the Electoral College system? PA has 20 electoral votes and TX has 38. The constitution allows a state to decide how choose their electors. What difference does it make to the voter in TX if PA chooses their electors legally or illegally based on state law? It’s not really any of Texas’ business how PA runs their elections.
So, you are being obtuse!
Perhaps you have missed the Electors Clause of our Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, which Kentucky agreed to and commands that only the legislatures of the States are permitted to determine the rules for appointing presidential electors.
So, as proven above, Maine, e.g., does have a say in how Kentucky conducts its election! It demands that Kentucky’s legislature, and only its legislature, is permitted to determine the rules for appointing presidential electors.
Additionally, Kentucky also agreed to the 14th Amendment to our Constitution which includes an “Equal Protection Clause”, commanding that a State’s adopted election laws are to be applied equally within a State’s jurisdiction and not vary from district to district.
JWK
There can be no “unity” between socialist Leaders who lure voters with a piece of free government cheese, and Leaders who support and defend rights associated with property ownership, a meritocracy and a free market, free enterprise system!
You keep dancing around my point, Liz Lemon. Let me try to break this down more clearly:
Scenario A:
States 1 and 2’s laws require the state’s electoral votes to go to the winner of the popular vote in that state. State 1 has a perfectly above board election and chooses Trump. State 2’s popular vote should have gone for Trump, but there were illegal ballots cast and the electoral votes ended up going to Biden.
Result: Trump gets State 1’s electoral votes. Biden gets State 2’s electoral votes.
Scenario B:
States 1’s laws require the state’s electoral votes to go to the winner of the popular vote in that state. State 2’s laws, as decided by the legislation, allowed the state legislature to decide who to give the state’s electoral votes to. State 1 has a perfectly above board election and chooses Trump. State 2’s legislature chooses to give their electoral votes to Biden.
Result: Trump gets State 1’s electoral votes. Biden gets State 2’s electoral votes.
Why is a voter in State 1’s right to vote abridged in scenario A, but not in scenario B?
Dancing around?
So now you quote me with regard to something having nothing to do with what you posted above.
JWK
Good grief, Liz Lemon! Why do you keep trying to avoid my questions?
Scenario A:
States 1 and 2’s laws require the state’s electoral votes to go to the winner of the popular vote in that state. State 1 has a perfectly above board election and chooses Trump. State 2’s popular vote should have gone for Trump, but there were illegal ballots cast and the electoral votes ended up going to Biden.
Result: Trump gets State 1’s electoral votes. Biden gets State 2’s electoral votes.
Scenario B:
States 1’s laws require the state’s electoral votes to go to the winner of the popular vote in that state. State 2’s laws, as decided by the legislation, allowed the state legislature to decide who to give the state’s electoral votes to. State 1 has a perfectly above board election and chooses Trump. State 2’s legislature chooses to give their electoral votes to Biden.
Result: Trump gets State 1’s electoral votes. Biden gets State 2’s electoral votes.
Why is a voter in State 1’s right to vote abridged in scenario A, but not in scenario B?
Not only did I answer your question IN THIS POST, but I put it in crayon for you so you could understand the answer.
JWK
There can be no “unity” between socialist Leaders who lure voters with a piece of free government cheese, and Leaders who support and defend rights associated with property ownership, a meritocracy and a free market, free enterprise system!
No you haven’t, Liz Lemon. Try again:
Scenario A:
States 1 and 2’s laws require the state’s electoral votes to go to the winner of the popular vote in that state. State 1 has a perfectly above board election and chooses Trump. State 2’s popular vote should have gone for Trump, but there were illegal ballots cast and the electoral votes ended up going to Biden.
Result: Trump gets State 1’s electoral votes. Biden gets State 2’s electoral votes.
Scenario B:
States 1’s laws require the state’s electoral votes to go to the winner of the popular vote in that state. State 2’s laws, as decided by the legislation, allowed the state legislature to decide who to give the state’s electoral votes to. State 1 has a perfectly above board election and chooses Trump. State 2’s legislature chooses to give their electoral votes to Biden.
Result: Trump gets State 1’s electoral votes. Biden gets State 2’s electoral votes.
Why is a voter in State 1’s right to vote abridged in scenario A, but not in scenario B?
I addition, I’m not sure why you think putting something in crayon would help someone understand something better. If anything it will make it harder since something written in crayon vs pen would be harder to read.
Review isn’t a computer into which you input data and it mechanically spits out a uniform decision. It is an interpretation of a written document containing complex, nuanced ideas that allows for such interpretation.
I understand your frustration when things go against your views (I’ve had my frustrations-many) but there must be some sort of philosophical trust put into the system of review.
Get mad. Be outraged. But ultimately, review is an imprecise science and to expect a precise outcome is unrealistic.
The name is johnwk. Not Liz Lemon. I do not appreciate you addressing me a derogatory manner.
Aside from that it appears you are being purposely obtuse .
In the post found at the link above I did show what you allege I didn’t show. I wrote:
That of course does show what you alleged I didn’t show when you wrote:
“You keep repeating basically the same thing over and over again without actually showing how the voter in one state has their right to vote abridged because of an illegal vote in another state.”
If you still think a state by allowing a million illegal ballots to be counted in a federal electoral process is not an abridgement of the right to vote of the voters in another state that plays by the rules, in addition to being an abridgement of the right to vote of voters in the State the adds a million illegal ballots, your cognitive reasoning skills are less than desirable.
JWK
When it comes to healthcare and helping the needy, our socialist Democrat Party Leadership has no moral compass whatsoever. They refuse to make the distinction between CHARITABLE GIVING and tax tyranny to support the health care needs of millions of illegal entrants and foreign aliens.
You keep posting her picture as if its your reaction.
I’m not.
It’s not an abridgement on a person in another state’s right to vote because its up to the state to determine how to choose their electors. You’ve created some sort of arbitrary made up notion that somehow in scenario A the voter’s right to vote is abridged but not in scenario B despite the outcome being the same. If there were no illegally cast ballots in PA but all the voters drove faster than the speed limit to the voting place, is the voter in TX’s right to vote abridged because all the voters in PA broke state law by speeding? What if they were all smoking crack while voting? Does that abridged the voter in Texas’ right to vote?
My goodness. Your cognitive reasoning skills are less than desirable.
Electors are chosen by a popular vote of the people.
If a state’s employees, e.g., in Pennsylvania, violate the State’s Constitution and corrupt the electoral process by introducing a million illegal ballots in a federal electoral process with the intention of favoring a particular candidate, not only has that State’s voters’ right to vote been abridged, but the illegal activity has corrupted the federal electoral process for voters across the nation who have cast ballots in accordance with the rule of law
Elevating a particular candidate in one state by illegal methods is most certainly an abridgement of the right to vote of people in others states whose legal votes are rendered meaningless, and diminished by the amount of illegal ballots counted in another state. [1]
As succinctly stated by Justice Douglas eighty years ago, when acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state “they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain” ___ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941)".
[1] NOTE: Over 1 million illegal no-excuse mail in ballots were counted in PA’s election results.
JWK
When it comes to healthcare and helping the needy, our socialist Democrat Party Leadership has no moral compass whatsoever. They refuse to make the distinction between CHARITABLE GIVING and tax tyranny to support the health care needs of millions of illegal entrants and foreign aliens.
Okay, Yellow Emoticon. Thanks for the kind words!
Based on state law. Are you claiming that the Constitution does not allow a state to change their laws so that the legislation chooses the electors and not the instate popular vote?
It find that this is an odd hill for you to take a stand on considering you’re usually “Mr. State’s rights, Founding Fathers were always right, the SC is wrong about income taxes.”
[1] NOTE: Over 1 million illegal no-excuse mail in ballots were counted in PA’s election results.
So, once again you deflect and avoid addressing what I posted. Let us try it once again:
Electors are chosen by a popular vote of the people.
If a state’s employees, e.g., in Pennsylvania, violate the State’s Constitution and corrupt the electoral process by introducing a million illegal ballots in a federal electoral process with the intention of favoring a particular candidate, not only has that State’s voters’ right to vote been abridged, but the illegal activity has corrupted the federal electoral process for voters across the nation who have cast ballots in accordance with the rule of law
Elevating a particular candidate in one state by illegal methods is most certainly an abridgement of the right to vote of people in others states whose legal votes are rendered meaningless, and diminished by the amount of illegal ballots counted in another state. [1]
As succinctly stated by Justice Douglas eighty years ago, when acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state "they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain" ___ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941)".
[1] NOTE: Over 1 million illegal no-excuse mail in ballots were counted in PA’s election results.
Do you disagree with anything written above? If so explain.
JWK
