4 ms·

Usually, the strategy is to draw a false equivalence to the 1960 presidential election, specifically the recount in Hawaii [1][2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org

Usually, the strategy is to draw a false equivalence to the 1960 presidential election, specifically the recount in Hawaii [1][2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election_in_Hawaii#Analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidentia... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot#1960_Hawaii_electors_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot#1960_...

AnimalMuppet 7mo ago
But that really is a false equivalence, as you state. Hawaii created a slate of alternate electors, in case the recount changed the result. But only one slate was endorsed by the governor; only one slate was presented at the Electoral College. Having "alternate electors", who were not endorsed by the governor, and who didn't win the recount (or the court case), show up at the electoral college anyway, claiming to be the real thing... that is a whole different deal. It's not a good-faith contingency plan for if you win the recount; it's a bad-faith attempt to overthrow the vote after you lost the recount.