A lesson in how our constitution is set up to decide elections.

A great video. If you don't believe it, read the constitution yourself...
 
If this is true..why would anyone ever concede?
 
I Guess i Cut school on that day thank you for the make up class thank god for CSR we learn something every day Thank You
 
Air O'Nautical said:
If this is true..why would anyone ever concede?
Click to expand...
He said it it his video “The most powerful thing is the United States of America to keep the peace is not in law, its a custom”. “Its a wonderful custom”. This is a great lesson. And it explains exactly why it is important for the peace of America that there be a concession once it is clear. The protests in Washington are the reason why a President should concede once it is clear who has won.

The alternative as he outlines, hinges on it being determined that it is a tight election such that the electoral vote is not certified. He uses the term "undisputable majority". But the 12th amendment actually says "The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; ". The word "undisputable" is not in the 12th Amendment, it just says majority. But lets say the for shits and giggles that "majority" should not be read literally (like every othe word is to be taken literally) I wonder how that is determined? If the electoral vote is 306 to whatever, is that close? Doe the Supreme Court Decide?

If so, if this becomes the normal process, this could undermine and negate the whole purpose for an election and create complete anarchy.

As he said this is interesting.
 
Last edited:
Creekwood said:
"The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; ". The word "undisputable" is not in the 12th Amendment, it just says majority. But lets say the for shits and giggles that "majority" should not be read literally (like every othe word is to be taken literally) I wonder how that is determined? If the electoral vote is 306 to whatever, is that close? Doe the Supreme Court Decide?

If so, if this becomes the normal process, this could undermine and negate the whole purpose for an election and create complete anarchy.

As he said this is interesting.
Click to expand...

There are 538 electoral votes total from the 50 states. It takes 270 to win the election. This is not disputable and is clear in the constitution.

The problem lies when neither party reaches the 270 threshold, such as a situation in which a state cannot select electors due to voting irregularity or some other reason, or even a 269-269 split. At that point the 12th amendment states that congress shall immediately vote for President by using states delegations (1 vote per state) and the senate shall vote for Vice President (1 vote per senator).

Creekwood said:
If so, if this becomes the normal process, this could undermine and negate the whole purpose for an election and create complete anarchy.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by "normal process" as it was ratified June 15, 1804, and actually used once after that (1824). This process follows in line with the electoral process in the constitution.

Again, remember, the US is not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic.

And I totally disagree with your description of the process. It was placed there for a reason.
 
This video was actually already posted in the Holding Tank, so there are some comments there as well.
I think the professor made his biggest mistake in the first 30 seconds: It doesn't matter whether a candidate concedes or not in terms of the issue needing to be solved in the House of Representatives. The only issue is whether or not there are a majority of certified electors for one or the other candidate as Creekwood describes. In 2000, Vice President Gore conceded, then took it back. In 2016, Hilary Clinton conceded but then participated in subsequent attempts to recount or otherwise challenge the election.
His likening of the situation to a monarchy was cringe-worthy.
He neglected to mention the election I think was the most relevant contested election with no concession. In the election of 1876 there were multiple state elector certs as well as accusations of voter fraud. The Congress, facing a crisis and seeing the 12th Amendment as it stood was not going to be sufficient to solve the problem, passed a quick law forming an "Electoral Commission" that ultimately decided the election through the Compromise of 1877. The Compromise ended Reconstruction in return for the election of the Republican candidate. Congress then passed the Electoral Count Act of 1887 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Count_Act) to supplement the 12th Amendment and it provides a great level of detail on how the vote is processed. One needs to absorb that law to understand what may happen if the current election ends up in Congress for resolution. The law includes roles for state legislatures and governors as well as U.S. Senators that are quite a bit more complicated than the professor's description of everything happening in the House. Its provisions likely make it impossible for the current controversy to succeed based on how Certifications are processed. Interestingly, it also includes the provision that could make Speaker Pelosi President under certain scenarios.
The professor also got the number of members of the House of Representatives wrong but I guess that is a nit.
 
The focus on a concession is misguided. No requirement for that. Each state picks it's electors -- an they can do what they want. They could pull them out of a hat as far as the constitution is concerned. In modern times, we use a "election." It's a referendum, if you will. It tells the state, "hey this is who we want you to pick." Each state certifies it's election and thereby picks it's electors. Not every state has to certify. They can choose not to participate. But they do. As said above, it's only in the case of a tie that The House will come into play.

In the instant case, "the election" isn't contested. Trump is challenging a few elections -- individual state elections. So lets say GA says fk it, we ain't counting this chit again, our election was messed up. They can turn around an pick electors however they want. Conceivably, they could declare a tie and pick 8 electors for Biden and 8 electors for Trump. Then you have the "faithless electors." In 2016, Trump only received 304 electoral votes (vs. the 306 he won on election night). In fact Pence received more electoral votes for VP (305) than Trump. A couple of dudes in Texas went rogue.
 
There are 538 electoral votes total from the 50 states. It takes 270 to win the election. This is not disputable and is clear in the constitution.
My point was that in the video he says indisputable majority. That is not what the constitution says. It says exactly what I quoted. Whoever wins the "majority" of Electoral votes wins.

The problem lies when neither party reaches the 270 threshold, such as a situation in which a state cannot select electors due to voting irregularity or some other reason, or even a 269-269 split. At that point the 12th amendment states that congress shall immediately vote for President by using states delegations (1 vote per state) and the senate shall vote for Vice President (1 vote per senator).
I don't disagree. Let the process unfold. Whoever wins the majority of electoral college votes is the president. You are describing a tie. A tie goes to the process in the video. But only if there is a tie.

Not sure what you mean by "normal process" as it was ratified June 15, 1804, and actually used once after that (1824). This process follows in line with the electoral process in the constitution.
What I mean is that if it becomes the normal process that every President drags out the process, and goes to go to the courts to decide the outcome and alleges fraud, there will be anarchy and no smooth transition of power. This is a dangerous precedent to set.

Don't get me wrong, if there truly was widespread election fraud it should be investigated and fixed.

Again, remember, the US is not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic.
I don't disagree. But many people use the word democracy in the context of the definition of democracy. Which is (from Merriam Webster):
1a : government by the people especially : rule of the majority. b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.​
So the US is a democracy in the purest definition, although I know that the use of the term has become politicized like so many other terms in the US. No doubt at all that the US is a constitutional republic as to how it has implemented a democratic system of government. The UK, Canada, Australia have parliamentary democracies.

And I totally disagree with your description of the process. It was placed there for a reason.
I did not describe the process, I quoted from the 12th amendment. And yes, the tie breaking arrangement was placed there for a reason. I guess you have a different interpretation? I thought the words must be read literally?
 
Last edited:
Many of you are selectively missing or ignoring a very important point of the video, which is why conceding is done in the vast majority of elections in the US, even if it is not required by law. No one is disputing what the tie breaking mechanisms are, or the need to ensure that fraud in voting did not impact the outcome, or the need to do recounts in tight races.
 
Creekwood said:
Many of you are selectively missing or ignoring a very important point of the video, which is why conceding is done in the vast majority of elections in the US, even if it is not required by law. No one is disputing what the tie breaking mechanisms are, or the need to ensure that fraud in voting did not impact the outcome, or the need to do recounts in tight races.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. Concession is the sportsman's way of loosing. There is no requirement and it doesn't impact the electoral process in any way. In 2000 Al Gore conceded before he didn't concede. No reason to over complicate it. The states hold their elections. They use those results to appoint the actual electors, who do the actual voting.
 
Bottom line, unless a candidate gets a majority of the electoral votes (270, as the majority is determined to be the majority of the states) then the 12th amendment kicks in.

Trying to say a majority of electoral votes is decided by the total voting, in the instance a state or states not certifying simply doesn’t hold water.

There are 538 votes. 270 is the number to win. Anything below that? Goes to the Congress.
 
Creekwood said:
Many of you are selectively missing or ignoring a very important point of the video, which is why conceding is done in the vast majority of elections in the US, even if it is not required by law. No one is disputing what the tie breaking mechanisms are, or the need to ensure that fraud in voting did not impact the outcome, or the need to do recounts in tight races.
Click to expand...

No one is missing anything. Right now we have several states in dispute. We are a country of laws, and those in dispute are now following the law.

In 2000 Al Gore was praised for disputing Florida, and he was allowed to follow the law to settle the dispute, even though each and every recount he lost. Yet, he was allowed to take it to the SC.

Today, we are hearing how wrong it is to give President Trump the same rights.
 
CaptRonn said:
No one is missing anything. Right now we have several states in dispute. We are a country of laws, and those in dispute are now following the law.

In 2000 Al Gore was praised for disputing Florida, and he was allowed to follow the law to settle the dispute, even though each and every recount he lost. Yet, he was allowed to take it to the SC.

Today, we are hearing how wrong it is to give President Trump the same rights.
Click to expand...
Not from me you aren't hearing that. He has every right to request recounts where it is close and he can also ask for voting irregularities to be investigated.

I think that he should also calmly tell the country that it is within his right to demand recounts and also to request that allegations of voting irregularities be investigated to ensure the integrity of the election.
But just as importantly, he should also explicitly and clearly say to all Americans that they should remain calm, and let the process play out as the founding fathers envisioned. And that he and Joe Biden need to respect the decision of the people upon the conclusion of that process. He should not be continuing to fan the flames of unrest in the country.
 
Creekwood said:
Not from me you aren't hearing that. He has every right to request recounts where it is close and he can also ask for voting irregularities to be investigated.

I think that he should also calmly tell the country that it is within his right to demand recounts and also to request that allegations of voting irregularities be investigated to ensure the integrity of the election.
But just as importantly, he should also explicitly and clearly say to all Americans that they should remain calm, and let the process play out as the founding fathers envisioned. And that he and Joe Biden need to respect the decision of the people upon the conclusion of that process. He should not be continuing to fan the flames of unrest in the country.
Click to expand...

Trump is not "fanning the flames of unrest" in the US. Right now there is a huge disinformation campaign underway to steer a narrative.
 
CaptRonn said:
Trump is not "fanning the flames of unrest" in the US. Right now there is a huge disinformation campaign underway to steer a narrative.
Click to expand...
I have read every one of his tweets. Have you? He is fanning the flames. Show me one tweet intended to calm the flames. Show me one.
 
Creekwood said:
I have read every one of his tweets. Have you? He is fanning the flames. Show me one tweet intended to calm the flames. Show me one.
Click to expand...

Read it any way you wish. I am also aware of the other side doing more than fanning flames.

But as to the wishes of the OP, I'm not going to take his thread political.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,177
Messages
1,428,006
Members
61,088
Latest member
SGT LAT
Back
Top