BREAKING NEWS

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

The constitutionality of some of the mail in ballots was questionable. I never disputed that.

It still seems unlikely that the remedy will be to retroactively undo the 2020 PA election results. My guess is this just means that legislature will have to officially change the rules before the next election in PA.

Still, not really evidence of fraud.

If an election was held through unconstitutional means you cannot just accept the results. PA would need to hold a special election for all PA elections, then the legislature would need to decide on the electors, or not send any electors.

If someone is convicted of an unconstitutional crime you do not just leave them in prison to complete thier sentence. You set that person free. A vote is no different. You cannot just accept an unconstitutional vote.

We'll see.

Comparing this to criminal law is probably not all that helpful, analogy-wise.

My guess is throwing out the PA results is still pretty unlikely.

[TheOneX]

My guess is throwing out the PA results is still pretty unlikely.

If it was deemed to be held through unconstitutional means your only option is to nullify the election. To do otherwise sets a scary precedent ripe for abuse.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

My guess is throwing out the PA results is still pretty unlikely.

If it was deemed to be held through unconstitutional means your only option is to nullify the election. To do otherwise sets a scary precedent ripe for abuse.

Nullifying elections based on bureaucratic and legal confusion sets a pretty bad precedent, equally ripe for abuse.

As I understand the PA lawsuit, the claim is that in the rush to change some election procedures the proper legislative channels were ignored. There is a strong case for this.

The second part of any lawsuit, though, is what remedy should be applied. Nullification isn't the only option. In fact, it is a pretty unlikely remedy. Asking the legislature to fix up the new laws through proper channels before the next election is a more reasonable expectation.

[Martin Hash]

Look how you’re sitting here arguing legal theory yet whenever I chime in you pull out “30 judges.”

[Martin Hash]

2 orders of magnitude against Trump on Mail-in ballots is impossible, even moreso than 1 order of magnitude; an undeniable indication of massive fraud; so says me, an expert. Maybe you got “30 computer science doctorates” that say otherwise? That’s how science works, right?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Again, you are assuming fraud, but the case in PA isn't about fraud.

[Martin Hash]

I’ll reiterate my position: there is massive fraud as indicated by the statistics. If there wasn’t then I wouldn’t support all these legal shenanigans, and neither would Rudy nor Sydney.

[Martin Hash]

“30 judges” vs. me

Democracy in action.

[Martin Hash]

It’s quite insulting. Fits in with my podcasts, books, quotes, etc. Until I’m famous, it doesn’t make any difference what I’ve achieved.

[Martin Hash]

I would have said “30 computer science doctorates” vs. me but there are NOT 30 computer science doctorates that have achieved what I’ve achieved: PE in computer science, eponymous animation technology, profiled in Wired magazine, twice selected Top 10 Most Creative, founded & ran a Tech company. You’re going to have a tough time using democracy against me.