181
submitted 1 year ago by Peaces@infosec.pub to c/politics@beehaw.org

NYT gift article expires in 30 days.

https://archive.ph/jg4L4

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] EvilColeslaw@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It seems to me that if the point is to preserve the option in case of litigation: having the would-be electors meet, conduct a vote, fill out certificates, and hold them until possible certification by the governor might have been fine. This is basically what happened in Hawaii in 1960 -- the Democratic slate was only sent to Washington once certified by the governor.

Going ahead and transmitting them and purporting them to be the actual certificates seems like a fraud.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.one 22 points 1 year ago

The difference between this and Hawaii, 1960 is that back then they hit the deadline to submit the slate of electors and they legit did not know who won the election.

So the state legislature sent TWO official slates of electors with the caveat that the winner should be determined by the time they were to be counted and only the winning slate should be counted, which was Kennedy, and Nixon was the one who counted them.

In this case, there was no doubt who the winner was (Biden) and the false electors weren't selected or submitted by the state, they self selected and self submitted. It was a complete and utter fraud.

There really is no comparison.

this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
181 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10132 readers
48 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS