Well, so much for this one. What's next?
(media.conspiracies.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (16)
sorted by:
My understanding is that he doesn't have to sign anything, as he has unilateral authority to accept or reject electors no matter a lawsuit or whatnot.
Show me I'm wrong or right please.
If Pence has unilateral authority to reject electors, don't you think Biden would have done the same thing four years ago?
Your understanding of the process is flawed.
Your counterfactual isn't a good response to an HONEST query.
So, if my understanding is flawed, enlighten me bro.
The word of choice here is unilateral. Again, democracy works because losers lose and winners win. If any outgoing administration can just choose to stay in power by rejecting electors, don't you think this would have happened already in American history?
If you have unilateral power, you don't need contested results or dueling electors (which is silly, because there aren't dueling electors... there are electors and people who said they deserved to be but weren't) to use your unilateral authority.
State electors can only be tossed after a simple majority passes both chambers of Congress. Pence has nothing to do with that process other than opening the mail.
Your knowledge of American history is very, very limited. It's like all you know is what happened since you started paying attention to politics a few years ago when you started getting a paycheck from Media Matters.
Jefferson, in a somewhat disputed election, as VP and and president of the Senate, and the candidate choosing the electors, put himself in power over Adams. It's happened before.
Look into other disputed and stolen elections and come back to us here a bit more informed. 1824, where Jackson was robbed, 1876, which led to the Compromise of 1876, and 1960, where nobody denies rampant voter fraud in IL and TX stole the election from Nixon.