WingsOfGold
Well-Known Member
Time to narrow it to 3, maybe 4.
Pence drops out
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
It should be though. The only people who think it's okay to "help" the demented and mentally ill cast votes is you cheating Democrats. If they are no longer competent to vote on their own, they're no longer competent to cast a legitimate vote.
They’re even better at helping the metabolically challenged in our nations cemeteries.
Of course requiring mental competency to vote would decimate the Democrat party, so there's that.
StmarysCity79
Well-Known Member
StmarysCity79
Well-Known Member
So a blind person can't vote?
What about someone who has a physical disability that prevents them from using their arms?
God you people come up with the dumbest reasoning.
Seems you shouldnt. be voting if you cant conceive of a blind person needing help to vote.
WingsOfGold
Well-Known Member
Good idea, what does your dog eat?
Under federal law, all polling places must have at least one accessible voting machine available for people with disabilities, including visually impaired voters. One example of this type of machine allows voters to listen to an audio version of the ballot and make their choices using a keypad marked in Braille — like an ATM.
For voters with less severe impairments, the machine can also magnify the text on the ballot, said Pete Zeigler, director of the Geauga County Board of Elections. The same machine can assist voters who have dexterity challenges or other issues with their hands, allowing them to make choices using a paddle or a "sip and puff" mouth instrument.
OccamsRazor
Well-Known Member
And you come up with the most ignorant analogies I have ever seen.
Also notice you are dodging Ken's questions....
StmarysCity79
Well-Known Member
You are the one claiming something so the burden of proof is on you to prove what you are saying to be true.
You can't and there is not a scrap of evidence nor any even opinion pieces that back up your claims because it is not true.
Show me where it says a procedural change to allow more widespread voting by mail or allowing early voting is in violation of the constitution.
Then show me how these measures were passed without legislative approval.
Below are all of the laws passed prior to the 2020 election to expand voting.
Among the 29 states and the District of Columbia that enacted expansive voting laws, seven states stand out for particularly ambitious legislative action to protect the right to vote in the face of significant constraints posed by the pandemic. These measures aimed to smooth election administration and protect voters and election workers from Covid-19. California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, Nevada, Utah, and Virginia all made substantial changes to their election laws this year to preserve safe access to the ballot box.
- California passed legislation to affirmatively mail ballots to all voters and set strict standards for polling place closures.footnote2_6raoum62
- Connecticut passed a broad bill to expand absentee access, allow drop boxes, authorize preprocessing of mailed ballots, and expand options for early in-person voting. Only the early voting provisions, however, are permanent.footnote3_u51rzmo3
- Massachusetts expanded options and eligibility for absentee and in-person early voting, set temporary standards for polling place closures that required election officials to look at disparate racial impact, and mailed absentee ballot applications to all voters. These changes were largely temporary; the only significant permanent reform was the expansion of in-person early voting options.footnote4_7deexmk4
- New York made a range of temporary and permanent changes to their mail and absentee ballot processes so that every New Yorker could vote by mail during the pandemic. The permanent changes included a notice and cure opportunity for rejected absentee ballots and a statutory presumption that ballots lacking a postmark were returned on time.footnote5_kbjs3yu5
- Nevada enacted new legislation requiring counties to keep a certain number of polling places open and mailed ballots to all voters. Nevada’s automatic voter registration (AVR) and same-day registration (SDR) statutes were also in place for the first time this year.footnote6_m8209ud6
- Utah passed a number of permanent reforms in an omnibus elections bill aimed at responding to Covid-19, including creating online voter registration, authorizing mail ballot drop boxes, and expanding the voter registration deadline.footnote7_kl4m97k7
- Virginia took the most ambitious steps to pass expansive legislation. After flipping the state House of Delegates and gaining a trifecta in 2019, Virginia Democrats enacted legislation to adopt automatic voter registration and same-day registration, repeal the photo ID requirement, allow no-excuse absentee voting, create a permanent absentee voter list option, and expand options for in-person early voting. These changes were made largely before the worst impacts of Covid-19 took hold.footnote8_9p4bqp58
Laws enacted to expand voting access were passed primarily in states where Democrats have full control of state government. (Democrats in Massachusetts have legislative supermajorities that allow them to override the Republican governor’s vetoes.) The notable exception is Utah, where Republicans passed a number of important pro-voter reforms.
Voting Laws Roundup 2020
Legislatures largely made it easier for voters to cast their ballots this year, but a backlash against voting access is expected in 2021.
Last edited:
StmarysCity79
Well-Known Member
If you are so concerned about the constitution surely Trumps attempt at replacing the real electors with fake electors surely outrages you no?
OccamsRazor
Well-Known Member
Wasn't this already explained in Post #22? As I read it, it is NOT a violation to change the process of voting. It IS a violation when you do NOT follow the proper procedure for changing it.
StmarysCity79
Well-Known Member
Please keep up. I have shown where each of the states changed legislation and exactly how.
Ken has no idea what he is talking about and is probably repeating some nonsense he read on Facebook and doesn't fully understand.
It is true,
- Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State, Kathy Boockvar, without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogated several Pennsylvania statutes requiring
signature verification for absentee or mail-in ballots. Pennsylvania’s legislature has not ratified these changes, and the legislation did not include a severability clause. - Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogated Georgia’s statute governing the signature verification process for absentee ballots.
- Michigan’s Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson, without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogated Michigan election statutes related to
absentee ballot applications and signature verification. Michigan’s legislature has not ratified these changes, and its election laws do not include a severability clause. - In direct contravention of Wisconsin law, leading up to the 2020 general election, the Wisconsin Elections Commission (“WEC”) and other local officials unconstitutionally modified Wisconsin election laws—each time taking steps that weakened, or did away with, established security procedures put in place by the Wisconsin legislature to ensure absentee ballot integrity.
I never made that claim, my claim was that changes made by these states were not accomplished by the legislature as required by the Constitution
That is the whole point, the changes were implemented without legislative approval.
If it happened yeah I would be concerned, but to my knowledge no list of false-electors ever made it to Congress.
In your opinion (for what that is worth), maybe. None of what I have posted has come from Facebook, it is just what anyone, not powered by a paramecium sized brain, can clearly observe by reading the Constitution or viewing the election processes that took place in 2020.
StmarysCity79
Well-Known Member
You have still failed to show the connection you claimed that any of this was unconstitutional and therefore the certification of these votes was invalid.
Why do only you possess this information and why wasn't this one of the 60+ tactics that Trumps attorneys tried to sue to subvert the election results?
You have again failed to prove your thesis and only repeated your claims.
No doubt your information comes from Steve Scalise's failed theory of the same ilk. Below is a good article linked that shows all of the myriad flaws in the theory
Here is the act that the general assembly of Pennsylvania passed:
Voting Reforms - ACT 77
www.vote.pa.gov
Just because they have not adopted signature verification going forward yet does not make it unconstitutional as you claim.
I showed in my earlier post where the fake electors were indeed delivered to Pence and he rejected them. Yet you don;'t care about an intentional act of trying to submit fake documents to change an election and only care about a bunch of non existent constitutional issues you have made up entirely.
Scalise’s flawed argument that states ignored their own laws
Nearly one year after Joe Biden won the presidential election, some Republicans still stand by the falsehood that the el
www.politifact.com
Last edited:
Ever read Article II, Section 1, paragraph 2 of the Constitution - "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector."
My take is that should electors be appointed using a process that was not directed by the legislature then such electors would not be valid. Do you see it any other way?
I read the act and now you should read that act too (it should only take you like a month or two and then your understanding of what it says will still be wrong), now clearly it has provisions for "proof of identification", now show me where it authorizes anyone (other than those that craft the law) to change that process.Here is the act that the general assembly of Pennsylvania passed:
Just because they have not adopted signature verification going forward yet does not make it unconstitutional as you claim.Voting Reforms - ACT 77
You must have forgotten how hardheaded I can be, especially when right. All that needs for me to let it go is show me where, within legislation, it authorized what the actors mentioned above did.
StmarysCity79
Well-Known Member
You still have failed to show electors being appointed by a process not directed by the legislature.
You have shown a few minor changes to the voting process to expand access to voting during a nationwide health emergency and you are deliberately trying to conflate the two issues.
If the election was not conducted according to law, how can the results, that appoint those electors, be valid?
No, I have shown that changes made to the process were not as directed by the Constitution. It is only you that are conflating the issues, I am only speaking of one issue.