3 ms·

Because that institution then worked another four times without incident. The institution, as flawed as it is, still kept transferring power peacefully. In 202

Because that institution then worked another four times without incident. The institution, as flawed as it is, still kept transferring power peacefully. In 2020's case, there was no dodginess, but nevertheless one candidate would rather discredit the institution rather than admit he lost, and -there is nothing to replace it with-. We've had 250 years of peaceful transfers of power because of this system; without a universally agreed to system to transfer power, we will have civil war.

splintercell 5y ago
> Because that institution then worked another four times without incident. The institution, as flawed as it is, still kept transferring power peacefully. The question you aren't answering is: At what point do YOU draw the line. Stop trying to explain that the line wasn't crossed in 2020 election (or in any other election before that). When, according to you, is the line crossed and the system has shown itself to be faulty. My claim is that your answer will be either a deflection or implication that the system can never be faulty (anything but a clear answer).
- lostcolony 5y ago
  What line are you referring to? -I- said that the system "worked" in the sense that power was transferred peacefully. I didn't say the system was flawless; just the opposite. But to tear down and discredit the system, as Trump has been endeavoring to do, without providing a replacement (other than "Trump is president no matter what the vote says", if that needs clarifying), means that power will no longer be able to transfer peacefully. That's the -one and only feature- that the system HAS to have; and it's that one that we'd be dispensing with. I have no idea what any other lines being crossed has to do with anything.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
koolba 5y ago
There was plenty of dodginess in 2020, not the least of which was States executive branches unilaterally making changes to their electoral process rather than going through the Constitutional mandated legislative branch. Many of those changes have since been thrown out by State level supreme courts for being unconstitutional: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/28/pennsylvania-mail-voting-courts/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/28/pennsylva... But judges don’t have time machines so that doesn’t change the outcome of anything. Anyone that can say that there is zero shenanigans in Philadelphia’s electoral process with a straight face should consider becoming a professional poker player.
- magicalist 5y ago
  > ...States executive branches unilaterally making changes to their electoral process.... Many of those changes have since been thrown out by State level supreme courts for being unconstitutional: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/28/pennsylvania-mail-voting-courts/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/28/pennsylva... That's a ruling by a single state court that's going to be immediately appealed, and it's of a law passed by the republican-held legislative branch.
- lostcolony 5y ago
  Uh, your own link - "The state’s Republican-controlled legislature passed the law establishing no-excuse mail-in voting for all voters in 2019 with bipartisan support". That's not the executive branch unilaterally anything. But, perhaps I should clarify then, rather than the abstract "dodginess", I'll instead say "uncertainty as to whether votes were cast legally, and counted correctly".

splintercell 5y ago

> Because that institution then worked another four times without incident. The institution, as flawed as it is, still kept transferring power peacefully. The question you aren't answering is: At what point do YOU draw the line. Stop trying to explain that the line wasn't crossed in 2020 election (or in any other election before that). When, according to you, is the line crossed and the system has shown itself to be faulty. My claim is that your answer will be either a deflection or implication that the system can never be faulty (anything but a clear answer).

lostcolony 5y ago
What line are you referring to? -I- said that the system "worked" in the sense that power was transferred peacefully. I didn't say the system was flawless; just the opposite. But to tear down and discredit the system, as Trump has been endeavoring to do, without providing a replacement (other than "Trump is president no matter what the vote says", if that needs clarifying), means that power will no longer be able to transfer peacefully. That's the -one and only feature- that the system HAS to have; and it's that one that we'd be dispensing with. I have no idea what any other lines being crossed has to do with anything.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

koolba 5y ago

There was plenty of dodginess in 2020, not the least of which was States executive branches unilaterally making changes to their electoral process rather than going through the Constitutional mandated legislative branch. Many of those changes have since been thrown out by State level supreme courts for being unconstitutional: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/28/pennsylvania-mail-voting-courts/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/28/pennsylva... But judges don’t have time machines so that doesn’t change the outcome of anything. Anyone that can say that there is zero shenanigans in Philadelphia’s electoral process with a straight face should consider becoming a professional poker player.

magicalist 5y ago
> ...States executive branches unilaterally making changes to their electoral process.... Many of those changes have since been thrown out by State level supreme courts for being unconstitutional: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/28/pennsylvania-mail-voting-courts/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/28/pennsylva... That's a ruling by a single state court that's going to be immediately appealed, and it's of a law passed by the republican-held legislative branch.
lostcolony 5y ago
Uh, your own link - "The state’s Republican-controlled legislature passed the law establishing no-excuse mail-in voting for all voters in 2019 with bipartisan support". That's not the executive branch unilaterally anything. But, perhaps I should clarify then, rather than the abstract "dodginess", I'll instead say "uncertainty as to whether votes were cast legally, and counted correctly".