Yep, the writers of the constitution were genius. That's a good summation.

 

I guess very few of us should have passed Social Studies.

 

A great video. If you don't believe it, read the constitution yourself...

 

If this is true..why would anyone ever concede?

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

“The UK, Canada, Australia have parliamentary democracies”

Thankfully the US doesn’t.

 

Remember Hillary telling Biden not to concede no matter what under any circumstances? But that's ok?

 

Lots of good ole boys yacking about a revolution. I don’t see it.

Some hoping on a SCOTUS ruling. I don’t think it’ll matter. Who’s going to enforce the ruling?

States rule. They’ll decide this election soon enough.

Hang on to your guns and wallets.

 

But MSM and the left are ok to say what they want??

Like this garbage, how'd this nasty thing end up in Congress

 

Because she was voted in by her people.... that’s where we park them...Minnesota .... park enough and they own their corner

 

Went past the local gun shop yesterday and the parking lot was packed. No empty spots. Wife goes past it every day and said it has been like that every afternoon. Not that they are using them for a revolution but this country is going to get crazy the next few years. The way the democrats have been letting the looters and rioters do what they want it will only get worse. Lawlessness will be the norm, like the wild west. And with police departments being defunded and with the dislike the democrats have for law enforcement you will be on your own to defend yourself and your home.

 

Gun ranges by me have been packed for months. IL has something like a 6 month delay for a foid card.