If Election Goes To The House?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

You need a 2/3rds quorum in order to vote, then a simple majority. If you do not have a quorum no vote can happen, and no one is elected president, or if the simple majority does not happen (say Utah votes for that Mormon guy who ran last time, or Texas votes for Ron Paul) then no one is elected president. If no one is elected president, then the current VP becomes president.

Damn. Them 19th century bois were bananas for quorums. I guess before the transportation revolution, it ensured that there was enough of a representative body at the vote, since it would be easy to arrange it so only 51% of the eligible voters showed up when it took a months to get D.C. from Illinois.

Seems a little archaic now.

Yeah, I was trying to think of a good reason to still need quorum, and the only reasons I could come up with all involve the destruction of the US in some way in which case not having a quorum would be the least of our issues.

I guess a quorum requirement sort of functions like a filibuster as well - if you know you can't win on a majority, you can just get enough people to drag-ass and not show up for the vote.

So. I guess the question is: are quorums a good check on majoritarian mob rule, like the EC - or a tool of cynical bureaucrats to deny democratic consent of the governed?

[Martin Hash]

Back-in-the-day, the VP was the presidential candidate of the other Party. I guess they figured if the incumbent couldn’t get re-elected then give the opposition a chance.

[Martin Hash]

PA court throws out mail-in. It’s going to SCOTUS. What do you think, Hanny? What’s the MSM saying?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Back in the day the executive office was supposed to be the weakest branch of the federal government, so I expect nobody thought it would matter that much.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

PA court throws out mail-in. It’s going to SCOTUS. What do you think, Hanny? What’s the MSM saying?

Which mail-in? All of them?

[Haumana]

PA court throws out mail-in. It’s going to SCOTUS. What do you think, Hanny? What’s the MSM saying?

Which mail-in? All of them?

The ones that couldn't, or didn't, provide ID verification by Monday the 9th.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

As I understand it, there is no reason to stop PA certification in favor of Biden even with the contested mail in ballots being argued at SCOTUS, since the court decision won't affect the election outcome.

Last I heard, the contested ballots only amount to about 14,000 - which is a lot, but wouldn't hand PA to Trump.

[Haumana]

Even the democrat voters are admitting to shenanigans in Pennsylvania in signed affidavits.

[Martin Hash]

As I understand it, there is no reason to stop PA certification in favor of Biden even with the contested mail in ballots being argued at SCOTUS, since the court decision won't affect the election outcome.

Last I heard, the contested ballots only amount to about 14,000 - which is a lot, but wouldn't hand PA to Trump.

Those are the ones received after 8 pm. This is about all non-signature verified ballots. Potentially, 100,000

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

For perspective, the typical change in votes from a recount is about 400 (and usually in favor of the initial winner - like in 2016 WI recount), so Trump's team would have to provide some sort of evidence beyond hearsay that this election had error and fraud 10 to 100x the norm in important states before state certifications were blocked.