What can and must be done to ensure honest and transparent elections? That is a question that should be interest EVERYONE — especially, if like me, you believe most politicians don’t want honest, transparent elections. I’ll talk about that after I look at the current chaos.
Here are the remaining significant dates in the 2020 election calendar:
Dec 8: Deadline for all legal challenges in state courts
Dec 14: Electors in each state vote
Dec 23: Vote tallies must SENT
Jan 6: Congress meets to formally count the vote
Jan 20: President sworn in
The deadline for legal challenges in states was Tue, Dec 8. By Wed, Dec 9, ALL states had certified the election. At least 50 legal challenges have been removed or defeated. The Supreme Court case from Texas (joined by at least another 18 states) was rejected from being heard on Friday Dec 11. But the Supreme Court may still be involved in election disputes. More on that in a moment.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES DECEMBER 14
Current practice (I’ll contrast that to the Constitution) is that each political party that’s on the ballot in a state submits a slate of electors to the state board of elections. If that party’s candidate wins the popular vote in the state, those individuals will meet and cast their vote. This year that process begins Dec 14.
With very rare exceptions, it is a mere formality since the people put on the list of electors are usually trusted party members. However, an elector can vote for whomever they wish. People who have done so are labelled “faithless electors” even though the current Electoral College process is faithless to the Constitution. The most notable case was Roger MacBride in 1972. MacBride, heir to Rose Wilder Lane who authored “Little House on the Prairie” series and other works like “Discovery of Freedom”, was Virginia GOP Treasurer in 1972. Although Nixon won the popular vote in Virginia, MacBride exercised his right as an elector to vote for the Libertarian candidates — John Hospers and Tonie Nathan. This is typical of most electors who have voted for someone other than the party candidate — voting for a third party candidate or someone who is not on the ballot. For example, in 1976 an elector cast a vote for Ronald Reagan rather than Gerald Ford.
A more recent case was in Minnesota where an elector presumably cast a mistaken vote for John Edwards (Kerry’s running mate) for both president and vice president. As a result, Minnesota changed the law so that electors’ votes are made known to the public and any votes not cast for the party’s candidate are declared invalid.
In July 2020 the Supreme Court ruled that states could punish electors who didn’t follow the popular vote. Three electors in Washington state refused to vote for Hillary in 2016 even though state law required state electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote.
This year you can count on all electors being faithful to the party. And because of the challenges to the official results, you can bet that states will be anxious to vote and make the vote total public as soon as possible on Mon, Dec 14.
Mainstream media will tell you that the votes are final. But is there still something that Trump’s allies can do to roll back a fraudulent election?
COMPETING SLATE OF ELECTORS
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…”
State legislature set the METHOD of appointing legislators and for several decades after the Constitution was enacted, the majority of states had the legislatures pick electors directly. Today, the establishment would scream foul, but the Constitution allows the legislature to choose the MANNER of how electors will be selected —- period.
It would be an uphill fight against establishment press and politicians — and most likely the judiciary. But there’s another question: would Republican controlled legislatures in states with alleged fraud do it? Here’s the current landscape in the 4 states that were the focus of the Texas lawsuit rejected by the Supreme Court on Saturday: (See picture above)
Republicans control both House and Senate in the 4 states but by narrow margins in AZ. To deny Biden the 270 electors, at least 33 electors would have to switch to Trump. What combination of states would be required?
both MI and PA legislators would have to appoint a new slate
OR
A combination of 3 states would have to put up a new slate
If they were to pull that off, the new slate of electors would certainly be challenged in court and likely by the Governor (there have been past cases where the Governor and legislature put up competing slates of electors).
To make this work, Republicans would have to work quickly to put forth a new slate of electors and possibly change laws to do so. The deadline for the new slate of electors is 9 days away, Dec 23. It’s not likely any of the legislatures would have the energy or determination to take these actions in 9 days. Nothing has been done toward this for the 41 days since the election.
Then there’s public opinion, completely controlled by the monopoly of mainstream media and social media, as we’ve seen with the “pandemic” and election. The finality of Dec 14 votes by electors will be trumpeted in unison so that the public believes it.
Media is already threatening to charge members of Congress with “sedition”. As ludicrous as that is, the monolithic media and cancel culture will have politicians running scared.
ELECTION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
In a situation when no candidate has a majority, the Constitution provides for the House to decide the election. Each state is given 1 vote. Since Republicans hold 26 states, they would have an advantage, even with Pelosi still as Speaker.
There have been situations where no candidate got a majority in the Electoral College— primarily before the imposed duopoly of Democrats and Republicans. But if there’s only 2 candidates, one of them WILL get a majority — unless some states votes are removed. The closest example of what could happen in 2020 is 1876. There were only 2 candidates, Republican and Democrat, but no one got a majority because of disputed election results in 4 states. Sound familiar?
The lawsuit by Texas, joined by many other states, sought to have the results of 4 states thrown out. That would have denied Biden 270 votes and likely put the election into the House of Representatives. But the Supreme Court refused to hear the case on Dec 11.
NOW WHAT? CIVIL WAR? SECESSION?
In the shadow of the Supreme Court decision, many did not notice the decision by a Trump nominated judge in Wisconsin. In that decision, Judge Brett Ludwig wrote “A sitting president who did not prevail in his bid for reelection has asked for federal court help in setting aside the popular vote based on disputed issues of election administration, issues he plainly could have raised before the vote occurred.”
While I believe there is sufficient evidence of fraud that courts SHOULD set aside the election results in enough states that there should be either a new slate of electors or an election in the House, neither appears likely due to the short time left and the lack of forethought.
Nothing was done to stop the fraudulent vote-by-mail scheme that was based on the fraudulent lockdown and panic. The corruption of the lockdown election was easily predicted and I talked about it constantly for months leading up to the election. Both President Trump and AG Barr publicly talked about what would happen but neither did anything about it other than talk. No contingency plans were made.
More importantly they did nothing to stop the strangling of our lives by dictatorial mandates “justified” by a fake pandemic. As I also repeatedly said over the last several months, it looks like the plan from BOTH parties was to create chaos after an election that the losing side would not believe.
Now we are hearing many throwing out the idea of martial law or civil war. I ask you: has the rule of law ALREADY been suspended when we are ruled by the whims and mandates of heath bureaucrats and state governors? The same day that the Electoral College is voting, the Trump White House will be using the military to deliver massive quantities of mRNA/DNA modifying vaccines. Do you think they care about your vote? They don’t care about your informed consent when it comes to vaccines. It will be mandated by corporations and by implied threats of lawsuits against businesses under either Trump or Biden.
When we are ruled by unelected bureaucrats, what difference does an election make? Fauci gave BigPharma protection from lawsuits for vaccines in 1986 and now, with Trump, he has the government funding research and development, skipping testing, buying as much as they can produce and delivering the product for them.
An honest, transparent election would occur on 1 day, using paper ballots, with the counting observed in person as well as live streamed. Honesty is simple. Deception leads to the complicated situations and chaos we are now facing.
