Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 1,202 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 58,191
Pageviews Today: 93,200Threads Today: 40Posts Today: 594
01:00 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

WHAT IF.... A theory of the End Game for the 2020 Election...including a long story for context.

 
russianbot2020
Offer Upgrade

User ID: 79533247
United States
11/22/2020 10:50 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
WHAT IF.... A theory of the End Game for the 2020 Election...including a long story for context.
Good morning GLP friends and foes!

Retirement is grand. I never thought my favorite part of not "working" anymore would be chopping and stacking wood and listening to podcasts.

If you'd let me, I'd like to take a few minutes of your day to lay out a possible scenario and please (as the internet will always do, see Cunningham's Law) correct me if any of my speculation is incorrect/misinformed.

It appears that Trump's plan is to challenge (through the courts) the legitimacy of several key states' election results, eventually leading to the SCOTUS where three of Trump's picks worked together on a similar situation in 2000 Bush v. Gore.

[link to www.cnn.com (secure)]

This would eventually lead to neither candidate reaching 270 electoral votes, which would activate the second half of the 12th amendment, putting the vote for the President in the hands of the House of Representatives, not by individual representative, but by state. Republicans control 26 state delegations, while Democrats hold 23.

[link to www.law.cornell.edu (secure)]

So Trump becomes president again and we "MAGA" for four more years/fall headlong into civil war, right?

Well...not necessarily, and let me explain why with a little story. In my mid 40s I got duped into being on the board of directors for a fairly large, multi-state non-profit. A professional acquaintance (lets call him Rick) was on the board, a seat was opening up and Rick asked if I'd be interested in joining the board. I won't go into too much details as I enjoy a bit of internet anonymity but if you live or work in Washington State, Oregon or Northern Cali you would recognize the name. I only say that to say that my initial reaction was "oh wow, these guys are big and legit, seems like a good idea to give back and help a good cause." The process was akin to a job interview, I had a panel interview that went great (don't mean to toot my own horn but I was a shoe in) and then a full background check (for D&O insurance). Some paperwork later I was a board member with a fancy head shot on their website and everything. Important to note, I was the eighth board member, and I would learn that as per our bylaws 8 was the minimum. This explained why the board seemed a bit rushed to fill the seat. And here I thought I was special.

A day after it became official I got a call from Rick asking if I was interested in going out for lunch, I said sure. Couple days later I meet him at a local restaurant, except he's not alone, three of the other board members are there with him. We eat, lots of small talk and getting to know each other, ended up having lots of mutual connections (one of the guys was in the same industry so a lot of our network overlapped) and the vibe was pretty friendly. Pretty quickly the conversation turns to the politics of the board, and things going on, lots of history between the board members, some government political connections and personality conflicts and stuff, then the real stuff came out. Turned out these guys suspected that the director was sleeping with one of the board members (who just happened to be the treasurer) and that there was possible embezzlement. -THANKS RICK FOR LETTING ME KNOW-. Five or six months prior Rick had put forth a motion for an independent, third party audit to be performed yearly as part of our budget process (this practice is industry standard now for practically all $1 mil+ non-profits). I guess the motion was struck down after a tie (Rick and these three guys voting yea) and the rest voting nay, with the president getting the nay tie breaking vote. My understanding was that the excuse given by the nay board members at the time was the potential cost of the audit, and because Rick didn't have any numbers in front of them they shot it down.

Well I guess Rick and these three guys pretended to drop it and nothing else was mentioned about it. Secretly, knowing that a board seat was opening up (which I filled) they just sat on their hands and waited, hoping the new sucker (me) would vote with them the next time they brought it up, which they did, at my first board meeting. -THANKS AGIAN RICK- So for those of you who've never had to deal with the narcolepsy inducing formality of a board of directors meeting you should know it's extremely formal, everything to be discussed is printed out and handed out prior to the meeting, the president has their "Roberts rules of order" book and a copy of the bylaws sitting next to them, and to their right is the board secretary notepad and pen ready to roll. Probably a good hour of "housekeeping" as we called it, small updates on projects and staffing, each board member presenting something from their committee. Then the treasurer gives a budget update, forecast and presents any capital expenditure requests over a certain $$ limit that the director doesn't have authority to approve. This is where it all started to go down hill. I bashfully raised my hand like I was in kindergarten, was given the table and asked the simple question "what was the directors limit?".

Simple, innocent question. Well, unfortunately that question was all that was needed for me looked at with dagger eyes by the treasurer. See, in the non-profit executive world when dealing with money you only have two types of people on a board: Spenders and Savers. This wasn't a question a spender would ask, so now, new to the board, I have (in my first words officially spoken) gained the scarlet letter of a Saver. This garnered a smirk by Rick and a couple of the other guys I went to lunch with. My question was answered within a millisecond by the treasurer, "5 thousand dollars." I smiled and said thank you. The meeting moved on until the "unfinished business" section near the very end. Rick presented his motion, but this time he had some cost estimates from a reputable accounting firm out of Portland that specialized in non-profits. To me the price range seemed fair given the size of the company. Initially there was humming and hawing and some debate about the necessity of it and then the treasurer went into a diatribe about how much she hated quickbooks (this was in the mid 90s mind you) and how she was trained on peachtree and how they switched last year and she how against it she was and if this firm even knew how to use quickbooks. Meanwhile this whole time the president was flipping through the bylaws and then lit up and said that our bylaws require a minimum of 3 competitive bids for any contracted service. At this point Rick began arguing the point, saying the motion was not to accept a bid or pick a specific company but to establish the third party auditing requirements in the bylaws. In seconds the president denied the motion and the issue was dropped.

So, the cards are on the table now. Next month rolls around and lo' and behold it's November, not any November it's 1996. Our normal meeting Monday falls on voting day and most of the board (including Rick) are huge democrats excited to see Clinton get re-elected so they decided to cancel the November meeting. Ended up talking to Rick sometime in November and he indicated he didn't get the 3 needed bids, he had gotten 6, good old passive aggressive power move there. So fast forward to our Monday meeting. Upon arriving we're told the president isn't feeling well, and he wouldn't be there. So we're there waiting, and the treasurer seem to be no-shows as well. We wait for her for 15-20 minutes, then start the meeting. With the President not present the VP (the other nay board member) is running the show. We go through all the dog and pony show to get to Rick presenting his motion again, this time with the 6 bids. With the treasurer and president not there I don't think it had the impact Rick was hoping. After presenting all the bids Rick calls for the motion to be voted on. The VP shook his head and said no, Rick asked why. The VP opened the bylaws and began reading. The requirements of our bylaws to pass any motion with financial impact on the non-profit required the secret word this entire story has been leading to: Quorum.

Quorum is an interesting thing. For those of you who are unaware quorum is the minimum amount of warm bodies a governing board (based on Roberts Rules of Order) needs in order to pass motions or laws or whatever. A simple majority is 51% but a quorum is defined by whatever the rule makers say, usually 2/3rds.

Our bylaws stated the board should have a minimum of 8 board members and a maximum of 12, and quorum was defined 2/3rds with a minimum of 7. So what did that mean? We couldn't vote....well I guess we could, but it wouldn't be legally binding. So we had to wait until the next meeting. This time the treasurer was on vacation and the president was on a business trip. This went on two more months, until we our March meeting and thankfully everyone showed up. Funny thing was, our financial year ended in February, so the March meeting was the yearly budgetary meeting which was 3 hours of non-stop numbers...grants, scholarships, endowments, the works. We FINALLY get around to Rick's motion, and with sick smiles on the president and treasurers' faces, they thank Rick for his research and due diligence with all the bids and they approve the motion. After the motion was passed Rick asked for another motion to select the accounting firm, to which the president said it was unnecessary to even look at the bids this meeting due to the fact that the first audit wouldn't be performed for almost a year, to which Rick, myself and the three other board members that all went out for lunch together got wide eyed and knew at that point SOMETHING was up.

But it didn't matter. Whatever cooking of the books needed to be done was done before the audit the next year. I stayed out my 2 year term then bowed out. I enjoyed being a part of the process but something was sketchy and I didn't really feel like sticking around to find out. Come to find out years later, that treasurer was sleeping with the director, the president and several other staff members. She actually ended up in politics, guess that's what you do when you're good at screwing people.


So coming back around...


From the 12th Amendment:

But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Do you see it? The end game? MAGA-kids think that Trump's 4D chess is going to end in the House voting him back in, but they fail to see that the true power of this process is in the QUORUM of the House, which the Republicans DO NOT HAVE. DO YOU SEE IT NOW? All the Democrats need to do is not show up to the vote in the House and the Senate and Nancy Pelosi is the 46th President of the United States. Once she gets that pen all hell will break loose (literally and figuratively) as Trump has spent the last 4 years establishing (through the backing of the SCOTUS) INSANE executive powers in executive orders. Pelosi could care less if the Senate and the House don't meet again for 4 years, she can rescind all of Trumps EO's and do pretty much whatever she wants. I'm not a Pelosi fan, she's got that Cruella de Vil meets Jezebel vibe to her, and I can only imagine what insane EO's she will write.

I guess what I'm saying is that when this is all said and done the Trumpers will wish they had rolled over and handed the (possibly stolen) election to Biden.

God save America.
Shinmen Takezo

User ID: 63773533
United States
11/22/2020 11:05 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WHAT IF.... A theory of the End Game for the 2020 Election...including a long story for context.
Actually it one state one vote. The GOP members can show making more than quorum and take a vote without blue states present. Pelosi is only interim president for a few days.
Shinmen Takezo
russianbot2020  (OP)

User ID: 79533247
United States
11/22/2020 11:12 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WHAT IF.... A theory of the End Game for the 2020 Election...including a long story for context.
Actually it one state one vote. The GOP members can show making more than quorum and take a vote without blue states present. Pelosi is only interim president for a few days.
 Quoting: Shinmen Takezo


Might need to pull out your calculator friend.

There are currently 435 voting representatives, 232 D and 197 R. 2/3 of 435 is 287...

Not seeing your math there.
the amazing bastard

User ID: 79343232
United States
11/22/2020 11:20 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WHAT IF.... A theory of the End Game for the 2020 Election...including a long story for context.
Actually it one state one vote. The GOP members can show making more than quorum and take a vote without blue states present. Pelosi is only interim president for a few days.
 Quoting: Shinmen Takezo


Might need to pull out your calculator friend.

There are currently 435 voting representatives, 232 D and 197 R. 2/3 of 435 is 287...

Not seeing your math there.
 Quoting: russianbot2020


Each state gets ONE vote. Not 6 votes For california and 2 votes for tennessee. Each state gets ONE VOTE.
ONE VOTE. ONE. EACH STATE GETS ONE VOTE.
bas·tard
ˈbastərd/Submit
noun
1.
archaicderogatory
​a person born of parents not married to each other.
synonyms: illegitimate child, child born out of wedlock; More
2.
informal
an unpleasant or despicable person.
"he lied to me, the bastard!"
synonyms: scoundrel, villain, rogue, rascal, weasel, snake, snake in the grass, miscreant, good-for-nothing, reprobate;
the amazing bastard

User ID: 79343232
United States
11/22/2020 11:21 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WHAT IF.... A theory of the End Game for the 2020 Election...including a long story for context.
You should just delete this nonsense thread.
bas·tard
ˈbastərd/Submit
noun
1.
archaicderogatory
​a person born of parents not married to each other.
synonyms: illegitimate child, child born out of wedlock; More
2.
informal
an unpleasant or despicable person.
"he lied to me, the bastard!"
synonyms: scoundrel, villain, rogue, rascal, weasel, snake, snake in the grass, miscreant, good-for-nothing, reprobate;
russianbot2020  (OP)

User ID: 79533247
United States
11/22/2020 11:22 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WHAT IF.... A theory of the End Game for the 2020 Election...including a long story for context.
Actually it one state one vote. The GOP members can show making more than quorum and take a vote without blue states present. Pelosi is only interim president for a few days.
 Quoting: Shinmen Takezo


Might need to pull out your calculator friend.

There are currently 435 voting representatives, 232 D and 197 R. 2/3 of 435 is 287...

Not seeing your math there.
 Quoting: russianbot2020


Each state gets ONE vote. Not 6 votes For california and 2 votes for tennessee. Each state gets ONE VOTE.
ONE VOTE. ONE. EACH STATE GETS ONE VOTE.
 Quoting: the amazing bastard



Son, you're a new kind of stupid.

How many states are there?

50

What is 2/3rd of 50?

33

How many states do the Republicans control?

26

NO QUORUM.

I accept apologies in cash, cashiers check and money order.
JustBobTX

User ID: 78471144
United States
11/22/2020 11:25 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WHAT IF.... A theory of the End Game for the 2020 Election...including a long story for context.
If this sequence of events does happen, all hell will break loose. hiding
My friends call me Bob.
OrAndSable

User ID: 78847297
Canada
11/22/2020 11:56 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WHAT IF.... A theory of the End Game for the 2020 Election...including a long story for context.
From the 12th Amendment:

But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. ...
 Quoting: russianbot2020


This seems like one member from two thirds of the states is sufficient for a quorum. If I'm reading this right, for the Democrats to deny a quorum it would not be sufficient that they simply have a majority in more than one third of the state delegations. They would have to control 100% of the state delegation for more than one third of the states.

Last Edited by OrAndSable on 11/22/2020 11:59 AM
OrAndSable
the amazing bastard

User ID: 79343232
United States
11/22/2020 12:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WHAT IF.... A theory of the End Game for the 2020 Election...including a long story for context.
Actually it one state one vote. The GOP members can show making more than quorum and take a vote without blue states present. Pelosi is only interim president for a few days.
 Quoting: Shinmen Takezo


Might need to pull out your calculator friend.

There are currently 435 voting representatives, 232 D and 197 R. 2/3 of 435 is 287...

Not seeing your math there.
 Quoting: russianbot2020


Each state gets ONE vote. Not 6 votes For california and 2 votes for tennessee. Each state gets ONE VOTE.
ONE VOTE. ONE. EACH STATE GETS ONE VOTE.
 Quoting: the amazing bastard



Son, you're a new kind of stupid.

How many states are there?

50

What is 2/3rd of 50?

33

How many states do the Republicans control?

26

NO QUORUM.

I accept apologies in cash, cashiers check and money order.
 Quoting: russianbot2020


So you're saying the Democrats will refuse to show up?
bas·tard
ˈbastərd/Submit
noun
1.
archaicderogatory
​a person born of parents not married to each other.
synonyms: illegitimate child, child born out of wedlock; More
2.
informal
an unpleasant or despicable person.
"he lied to me, the bastard!"
synonyms: scoundrel, villain, rogue, rascal, weasel, snake, snake in the grass, miscreant, good-for-nothing, reprobate;
Justice4all

User ID: 72965131
United States
11/22/2020 12:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WHAT IF.... A theory of the End Game for the 2020 Election...including a long story for context.
I think the plain reading of the amendment is that it is the states that will vote, that it is a quorum of the states (50 states), and the amendement expressly provides that is 2/3 of the states (34 if you round up).

And then it goes on to say that a state is present for quorum purposes if a member or members are present. That means if ANY member of a state's slate of house members shows up, that that state is present for quorum purposes.

So yes, Republicans control 26 delegations. But there are Republicans ON the "democrat" state delegations as well. They will show up, even if the Democrats from their state do not. And when they do, that means their state was present for quorum purposes, even if all that states Democrats boycott it (and they won't they can't, because that same vote is when they accept the electoral college, which they want to see happen, if that is what happens). "...Shall choose immediately by ballot the President...."

Once all 50 states are there, there by at least one member (even if a republican), then we have a quorum, and the vote is taken, where a majority "of the states" are required for a president to be elected. And there are 26 republican controlled delegations, and that, is a majority.

Furthermore, Trump (even under the current map) "won" 25 states popular vote. It could well also mean that even if that state is "Democrat controlled" it is possible that the state will not want to overrule the will of the people of that state. I am not up enough on politics to say if that is the case (ex. say Idaho went for Trump, but when you add up their House representatives, there are more dems than republicans), are they really going to cast their vote contrary to the vote of their people?

Last Edited by Justice4all on 11/22/2020 12:33 PM
Navysky

User ID: 79040049
United States
11/22/2020 12:32 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WHAT IF.... A theory of the End Game for the 2020 Election...including a long story for context.
I had heard that prior to this election Republicans controlled 26 states, Democrats 22, and 2 states were tied. But that after this election Republicans now held 37 states, Democrats now hold only 13, and if so that would make an easy 2/3rds for the Republican states to show up and vote. As I understand it, each states House of Reps gather and they vote together. If Republicans outnumber democrats, the Republicans get the singular vote for their state.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Justice4all

User ID: 72965131
United States
11/22/2020 12:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WHAT IF.... A theory of the End Game for the 2020 Election...including a long story for context.
good point it is the "new" congress that will take this certification for electoral votes, and if necessary vote on the contingent election (as this process is called).
Justice4all

User ID: 72965131
United States
11/22/2020 12:39 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WHAT IF.... A theory of the End Game for the 2020 Election...including a long story for context.
My understanding is each state's delegation of house representatives will have to meet and internally decide who they are voting for in a contingent election. I would assume they would take a vote, thought I don't think that this is proscribed any where, it's not in the constitution. I would assume they vote. So in this crisis situation, if you assume everyone votes along party lines (and if it comes to this, I am not sure you CAN assume that, there could be cross overs, either based on my "will of the people" argument in their state, or their own personal reasons, or what), but if you assume every representative in every state delegation votes with their party, then that means the Rep states will vote for Trump, and that will be a majority, under the current state, and even more so under the new Congress that will be in place then.
russianbot2020  (OP)

User ID: 79533247
United States
11/22/2020 12:39 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WHAT IF.... A theory of the End Game for the 2020 Election...including a long story for context.
Stumbled on this article while searching for scholarly info regarding quorum and 12th amendment:

[link to www.justsecurity.org (secure)]

Recourse to Parliamentary Quorum: How the Speaker Could Play Hardball Too

On January 3rd, Pelosi might convene an early caucus of the elected Democrats to discuss her plans once elected Speaker. When she takes the chair after her election and all members are sworn in, it will be her intention to recognize the Majority Leader to offer a resolution to create a select committee of her making to consider and report back to the new House for its approval a procedural rule to govern any proceeding arising under the 12th Amendment. She notes that Article 1 of the Constitution explicitly permits either House of the Congress “to determine the rules of its proceedings” such as how to count the quorum she would assert. The special procedural rule of the House may be put forward at any time at the Speaker’s discretion. Under its terms, each state delegation shall, by majority vote, appoint the member or members of the state delegation to be present in the House chamber for the purpose of establishing a quorum.[3] As members will readily recognize, lacking a majority in two-thirds of the state delegations, Republicans would thus not be able to establish a quorum made up of entirely Republican Representatives. With the Speaker presiding over (but abstaining from any vote taken on) any matter arising under the 12th Amendment and, notwithstanding any rule of the House or precedent to the contrary, the special rule would allow the Majority or Minority Leader or their designees to raise an objection at any time, and upon recognition, call for the yeas and nays on the absence of a quorum.[4]

In a parallel action the Senate minority leader would announce that under the 12th Amendment it is his intention to deny the Senate a quorum, which requires two-thirds of the members of the whole Senate, thereby blocking a vote on a new vice president. There is no ambiguity of text or purpose in the 12th Amendment requirement for the Senate quorum to consist of two thirds of the whole number of members of the Senate.[5]


Kind of spells out the same situation I was hypothesizing and interprets the text the same as well.

This could get interesting kids.....
GratefulWood

User ID: 79451282
United States
11/22/2020 12:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WHAT IF.... A theory of the End Game for the 2020 Election...including a long story for context.
Shit u better get ready for a refund on that apology payment because the GOP CONTROLS 32 states [link to www.quorum.us (secure)]

Last Edited by GratefulWood on 11/22/2020 12:44 PM
GratefulWood
OrAndSable

User ID: 78847297
Canada
11/22/2020 12:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WHAT IF.... A theory of the End Game for the 2020 Election...including a long story for context.
good point it is the "new" congress that will take this certification for electoral votes, and if necessary vote on the contingent election (as this process is called).
 Quoting: Justice4all


Actually, it's not clear whether the old house or the new house would vote in a contingent election. The 12th amendment is ambiguous on this point.

See [link to electoralcollegehistory.com]

Quoting: "The amendment made no attempt address the question of which Congress (lame duck or newly elected) would conduct contingent elections in the future. During this period, electoral votes were cast in January, and counted in February, while congressional and presidential terms expired on March 4. Thus, in 1801, contingent election was conducted by the lame duck House of the 6th Congress, as noted elsewhere in this report. Questions as to the propriety and fairness of this arrangement, by which a Congress controlled by a party repudiated in the immediately preceding elections could choose the President, seem not to have occurred to the framers of the 12th Amendment."
OrAndSable
russianbot2020  (OP)

User ID: 79533247
United States
11/22/2020 12:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WHAT IF.... A theory of the End Game for the 2020 Election...including a long story for context.
Shit u better get ready for a refund on that apology payment because the GOP CONTROLS 32 states [link to www.quorum.us (secure)]
 Quoting: GratefulWood


You must be both drinking from the same shallow well..

Your article was from 2016. There have been 2 elections since them and the R's have lost seats in both.

[link to ballotpedia.org (secure)]


Hosea 4:6

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.
Since you have rejected knowledge,
I also will reject you from being My priest.
Since you have forgotten the Law of your God,
I also will forget your children.

Last Edited by russianbot2020 on 11/22/2020 12:54 PM
Imlay

User ID: 1307397
United States
11/22/2020 01:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WHAT IF.... A theory of the End Game for the 2020 Election...including a long story for context.
If this sequence of events does happen, all hell will break loose. hiding
 Quoting: JustBobTX


THIS!

At least 80% of America, regardless of party affiliation, despises her.

I liked your backstory. Thanks for sharing.
We're king of the beasts but we're hardly civilized.
Bailey Howe

User ID: 59392389
United States
11/22/2020 01:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WHAT IF.... A theory of the End Game for the 2020 Election...including a long story for context.
Good morning GLP friends and foes!

Retirement is grand. I never thought my favorite part of not "working" anymore would be chopping and stacking wood and listening to podcasts.

If you'd let me, I'd like to take a few minutes of your day to lay out a possible scenario and please (as the internet will always do, see Cunningham's Law) correct me if any of my speculation is incorrect/misinformed.

It appears that Trump's plan is to challenge (through the courts) the legitimacy of several key states' election results, eventually leading to the SCOTUS where three of Trump's picks worked together on a similar situation in 2000 Bush v. Gore.

[link to www.cnn.com (secure)]

This would eventually lead to neither candidate reaching 270 electoral votes, which would activate the second half of the 12th amendment, putting the vote for the President in the hands of the House of Representatives, not by individual representative, but by state. Republicans control 26 state delegations, while Democrats hold 23.

[link to www.law.cornell.edu (secure)]

So Trump becomes president again and we "MAGA" for four more years/fall headlong into civil war, right?

Well...not necessarily, and let me explain why with a little story. In my mid 40s I got duped into being on the board of directors for a fairly large, multi-state non-profit. A professional acquaintance (lets call him Rick) was on the board, a seat was opening up and Rick asked if I'd be interested in joining the board. I won't go into too much details as I enjoy a bit of internet anonymity but if you live or work in Washington State, Oregon or Northern Cali you would recognize the name. I only say that to say that my initial reaction was "oh wow, these guys are big and legit, seems like a good idea to give back and help a good cause." The process was akin to a job interview, I had a panel interview that went great (don't mean to toot my own horn but I was a shoe in) and then a full background check (for D&O insurance). Some paperwork later I was a board member with a fancy head shot on their website and everything. Important to note, I was the eighth board member, and I would learn that as per our bylaws 8 was the minimum. This explained why the board seemed a bit rushed to fill the seat. And here I thought I was special.

A day after it became official I got a call from Rick asking if I was interested in going out for lunch, I said sure. Couple days later I meet him at a local restaurant, except he's not alone, three of the other board members are there with him. We eat, lots of small talk and getting to know each other, ended up having lots of mutual connections (one of the guys was in the same industry so a lot of our network overlapped) and the vibe was pretty friendly. Pretty quickly the conversation turns to the politics of the board, and things going on, lots of history between the board members, some government political connections and personality conflicts and stuff, then the real stuff came out. Turned out these guys suspected that the director was sleeping with one of the board members (who just happened to be the treasurer) and that there was possible embezzlement. -THANKS RICK FOR LETTING ME KNOW-. Five or six months prior Rick had put forth a motion for an independent, third party audit to be performed yearly as part of our budget process (this practice is industry standard now for practically all $1 mil+ non-profits). I guess the motion was struck down after a tie (Rick and these three guys voting yea) and the rest voting nay, with the president getting the nay tie breaking vote. My understanding was that the excuse given by the nay board members at the time was the potential cost of the audit, and because Rick didn't have any numbers in front of them they shot it down.

Well I guess Rick and these three guys pretended to drop it and nothing else was mentioned about it. Secretly, knowing that a board seat was opening up (which I filled) they just sat on their hands and waited, hoping the new sucker (me) would vote with them the next time they brought it up, which they did, at my first board meeting. -THANKS AGIAN RICK- So for those of you who've never had to deal with the narcolepsy inducing formality of a board of directors meeting you should know it's extremely formal, everything to be discussed is printed out and handed out prior to the meeting, the president has their "Roberts rules of order" book and a copy of the bylaws sitting next to them, and to their right is the board secretary notepad and pen ready to roll. Probably a good hour of "housekeeping" as we called it, small updates on projects and staffing, each board member presenting something from their committee. Then the treasurer gives a budget update, forecast and presents any capital expenditure requests over a certain $$ limit that the director doesn't have authority to approve. This is where it all started to go down hill. I bashfully raised my hand like I was in kindergarten, was given the table and asked the simple question "what was the directors limit?".

Simple, innocent question. Well, unfortunately that question was all that was needed for me looked at with dagger eyes by the treasurer. See, in the non-profit executive world when dealing with money you only have two types of people on a board: Spenders and Savers. This wasn't a question a spender would ask, so now, new to the board, I have (in my first words officially spoken) gained the scarlet letter of a Saver. This garnered a smirk by Rick and a couple of the other guys I went to lunch with. My question was answered within a millisecond by the treasurer, "5 thousand dollars." I smiled and said thank you. The meeting moved on until the "unfinished business" section near the very end. Rick presented his motion, but this time he had some cost estimates from a reputable accounting firm out of Portland that specialized in non-profits. To me the price range seemed fair given the size of the company. Initially there was humming and hawing and some debate about the necessity of it and then the treasurer went into a diatribe about how much she hated quickbooks (this was in the mid 90s mind you) and how she was trained on peachtree and how they switched last year and she how against it she was and if this firm even knew how to use quickbooks. Meanwhile this whole time the president was flipping through the bylaws and then lit up and said that our bylaws require a minimum of 3 competitive bids for any contracted service. At this point Rick began arguing the point, saying the motion was not to accept a bid or pick a specific company but to establish the third party auditing requirements in the bylaws. In seconds the president denied the motion and the issue was dropped.

So, the cards are on the table now. Next month rolls around and lo' and behold it's November, not any November it's 1996. Our normal meeting Monday falls on voting day and most of the board (including Rick) are huge democrats excited to see Clinton get re-elected so they decided to cancel the November meeting. Ended up talking to Rick sometime in November and he indicated he didn't get the 3 needed bids, he had gotten 6, good old passive aggressive power move there. So fast forward to our Monday meeting. Upon arriving we're told the president isn't feeling well, and he wouldn't be there. So we're there waiting, and the treasurer seem to be no-shows as well. We wait for her for 15-20 minutes, then start the meeting. With the President not present the VP (the other nay board member) is running the show. We go through all the dog and pony show to get to Rick presenting his motion again, this time with the 6 bids. With the treasurer and president not there I don't think it had the impact Rick was hoping. After presenting all the bids Rick calls for the motion to be voted on. The VP shook his head and said no, Rick asked why. The VP opened the bylaws and began reading. The requirements of our bylaws to pass any motion with financial impact on the non-profit required the secret word this entire story has been leading to: Quorum.

Quorum is an interesting thing. For those of you who are unaware quorum is the minimum amount of warm bodies a governing board (based on Roberts Rules of Order) needs in order to pass motions or laws or whatever. A simple majority is 51% but a quorum is defined by whatever the rule makers say, usually 2/3rds.

Our bylaws stated the board should have a minimum of 8 board members and a maximum of 12, and quorum was defined 2/3rds with a minimum of 7. So what did that mean? We couldn't vote....well I guess we could, but it wouldn't be legally binding. So we had to wait until the next meeting. This time the treasurer was on vacation and the president was on a business trip. This went on two more months, until we our March meeting and thankfully everyone showed up. Funny thing was, our financial year ended in February, so the March meeting was the yearly budgetary meeting which was 3 hours of non-stop numbers...grants, scholarships, endowments, the works. We FINALLY get around to Rick's motion, and with sick smiles on the president and treasurers' faces, they thank Rick for his research and due diligence with all the bids and they approve the motion. After the motion was passed Rick asked for another motion to select the accounting firm, to which the president said it was unnecessary to even look at the bids this meeting due to the fact that the first audit wouldn't be performed for almost a year, to which Rick, myself and the three other board members that all went out for lunch together got wide eyed and knew at that point SOMETHING was up.

But it didn't matter. Whatever cooking of the books needed to be done was done before the audit the next year. I stayed out my 2 year term then bowed out. I enjoyed being a part of the process but something was sketchy and I didn't really feel like sticking around to find out. Come to find out years later, that treasurer was sleeping with the director, the president and several other staff members. She actually ended up in politics, guess that's what you do when you're good at screwing people.


So coming back around...


From the 12th Amendment:

But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Do you see it? The end game? MAGA-kids think that Trump's 4D chess is going to end in the House voting him back in, but they fail to see that the true power of this process is in the QUORUM of the House, which the Republicans DO NOT HAVE. DO YOU SEE IT NOW? All the Democrats need to do is not show up to the vote in the House and the Senate and Nancy Pelosi is the 46th President of the United States. Once she gets that pen all hell will break loose (literally and figuratively) as Trump has spent the last 4 years establishing (through the backing of the SCOTUS) INSANE executive powers in executive orders. Pelosi could care less if the Senate and the House don't meet again for 4 years, she can rescind all of Trumps EO's and do pretty much whatever she wants. I'm not a Pelosi fan, she's got that Cruella de Vil meets Jezebel vibe to her, and I can only imagine what insane EO's she will write.

I guess what I'm saying is that when this is all said and done the Trumpers will wish they had rolled over and handed the (possibly stolen) election to Biden.

God save America.
 Quoting: russianbot2020





DO YOU want to discuss your personal work history because you are retired now? nobody wants to hear that crap and your personal experience by far is a poor comparison to what is at stake here, you know the heart & soul of America??

dumb fuck

Last Edited by Bailey Howe on 11/22/2020 01:19 PM
"When I got up this morning Sigmund Freud was still in medical school"
russianbot2020  (OP)

User ID: 79533247
United States
11/22/2020 01:46 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WHAT IF.... A theory of the End Game for the 2020 Election...including a long story for context.
DO YOU want to discuss your personal work history because you are retired now? nobody wants to hear that crap and your personal experience by far is a poor comparison to what is at stake here, you know the heart & soul of America??

dumb fuck
 Quoting: Bailey Howe



You sound a delightful fellow.

Heart and soul of America huh?

Is that the heart and soul that from 1973 to 2018 murdered 61.8 million unborn babies?

Or is that the heart and soul that is the #1 human trafficking destination in the world, and the largest generator, consumer and exporter of pornographic materials in the world?

Wait, maybe you mean the heart and soul that has overthrown duly elected governments, assassinated and committed atrocities against their own citizens under the pretense of engagement into foreign wars for corporatist profiteering?

No no, you're probably thinking about the heart and soul of your america: imbred, toothless and illiterate alcoholics and meth addicts who were told that they live in the land of the free home of the brave as long as their fireworks don't go above 6 feet and their guns don't look scary. That america is a myth, we are a nation controlled by the media/corporate complex.

Isaiah 51:17

Wake yourself, wake yourself,
stand up, O Jerusalem,
you who have drunk from the hand of the Lord
the cup of his wrath,
who have drunk to the dregs
the bowl, the cup of staggering.
darth

User ID: 28178764
United States
11/22/2020 02:02 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WHAT IF.... A theory of the End Game for the 2020 Election...including a long story for context.
Very interesting analysis.

I would not be surprised to see the dims use ANY strategy to get the power of the Presidency.

What if DJT sent US Marshalls to shanghai some dim reps and haul them to DC to create a quorum?

Its been done before.
EarthNotAPlanet

User ID: 39961547
United States
11/22/2020 03:18 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WHAT IF.... A theory of the End Game for the 2020 Election...including a long story for context.
I think the plain reading of the amendment is that it is the states that will vote, that it is a quorum of the states (50 states), and the amendement expressly provides that is 2/3 of the states (34 if you round up).

And then it goes on to say that a state is present for quorum purposes if a member or members are present. That means if ANY member of a state's slate of house members shows up, that that state is present for quorum purposes.

So yes, Republicans control 26 delegations. But there are Republicans ON the "democrat" state delegations as well. They will show up, even if the Democrats from their state do not. And when they do, that means their state was present for quorum purposes, even if all that states Democrats boycott it (and they won't they can't, because that same vote is when they accept the electoral college, which they want to see happen, if that is what happens). "...Shall choose immediately by ballot the President...."

Once all 50 states are there, there by at least one member (even if a republican), then we have a quorum, and the vote is taken, where a majority "of the states" are required for a president to be elected. And there are 26 republican controlled delegations, and that, is a majority.

Furthermore, Trump (even under the current map) "won" 25 states popular vote. It could well also mean that even if that state is "Democrat controlled" it is possible that the state will not want to overrule the will of the people of that state. I am not up enough on politics to say if that is the case (ex. say Idaho went for Trump, but when you add up their House representatives, there are more dems than republicans), are they really going to cast their vote contrary to the vote of their people?
 Quoting: Justice4all



I read it the way you do; OP is right, however, in that Pelosi controls the rules of order. She could stall and put up hurdles for the contingency election. On the other hand, the 12th amendment is pretty unambiguous that for THIS PURPOSE of electing a POTUS in a contingent, that quorum is met by 2/3s of states being represented, regardless of political party or number of reps present.

I would think that Trump could sue and SCOTUS would order the contingency election to proceed as dictated by the constitution.

Another aspect to look at: If massive fraud is exposed, the full house might not be seated, or the majority might end up going to the GOP. And even if Democrats maintain the majority, Pelosi might lose a great deal of legitimacy and gravitas as the head of a Party of CHEATS.
Mola Ram did nothing wrong.
ToSeek

User ID: 9653749
United States
11/22/2020 04:29 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WHAT IF.... A theory of the End Game for the 2020 Election...including a long story for context.
Good morning GLP friends and foes!

Retirement is grand. I never thought my favorite part of not "working" anymore would be chopping and stacking wood and listening to podcasts.

If you'd let me, I'd like to take a few minutes of your day to lay out a possible scenario and please (as the internet will always do, see Cunningham's Law) correct me if any of my speculation is incorrect/misinformed.

It appears that Trump's plan is to challenge (through the courts) the legitimacy of several key states' election results, eventually leading to the SCOTUS where three of Trump's picks worked together on a similar situation in 2000 Bush v. Gore.

[link to www.cnn.com (secure)]

This would eventually lead to neither candidate reaching 270 electoral votes, which would activate the second half of the 12th amendment, putting the vote for the President in the hands of the House of Representatives, not by individual representative, but by state. Republicans control 26 state delegations, while Democrats hold 23.

[link to www.law.cornell.edu (secure)]
 Quoting: russianbot2020


It's not that simple. The 12th Amendment - at the link just above - says "a majority of the whole number of electors appointed". If a state's results are challenged so that they have no electors appointed, then there are fewer than 538 electors total and therefore a majority is likewise less than 270.

For example, if the Trump campaign were able to get the results from PA, MI, GA, and AZ thrown out as irredeemably corrupt, that would bring the total number of electors down to 475. But Biden would still have 243 electors and a majority.

The Trump campaign either needs to disqualify a whole bunch of states or else make the case that Republican electors should be appointed instead of Democrats.
Billy82269

User ID: 75095934
United States
11/22/2020 04:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WHAT IF.... A theory of the End Game for the 2020 Election...including a long story for context.
From the 12th Amendment:

But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. ...
 Quoting: russianbot2020


This seems like one member from two thirds of the states is sufficient for a quorum. If I'm reading this right, for the Democrats to deny a quorum it would not be sufficient that they simply have a majority in more than one third of the state delegations. They would have to control 100% of the state delegation for more than one third of the states.
 Quoting: OrAndSable


That's right... As far as I'm seeing, there are only 9 states that have a 100% democrat delegation... So as long as a Republican shows up from the rest of the states quorum is more than reached.
Billy82269
Ryain

User ID: 78136870
United States
11/22/2020 04:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WHAT IF.... A theory of the End Game for the 2020 Election...including a long story for context.
I think the plain reading of the amendment is that it is the states that will vote, that it is a quorum of the states (50 states), and the amendement expressly provides that is 2/3 of the states (34 if you round up).

And then it goes on to say that a state is present for quorum purposes if a member or members are present. That means if ANY member of a state's slate of house members shows up, that that state is present for quorum purposes.

So yes, Republicans control 26 delegations. But there are Republicans ON the "democrat" state delegations as well. They will show up, even if the Democrats from their state do not. And when they do, that means their state was present for quorum purposes, even if all that states Democrats boycott it (and they won't they can't, because that same vote is when they accept the electoral college, which they want to see happen, if that is what happens). "...Shall choose immediately by ballot the President...."

Once all 50 states are there, there by at least one member (even if a republican), then we have a quorum, and the vote is taken, where a majority "of the states" are required for a president to be elected. And there are 26 republican controlled delegations, and that, is a majority.

Furthermore, Trump (even under the current map) "won" 25 states popular vote. It could well also mean that even if that state is "Democrat controlled" it is possible that the state will not want to overrule the will of the people of that state. I am not up enough on politics to say if that is the case (ex. say Idaho went for Trump, but when you add up their House representatives, there are more dems than republicans), are they really going to cast their vote contrary to the vote of their people?
 Quoting: Justice4all



I read it the way you do; OP is right, however, in that Pelosi controls the rules of order. She could stall and put up hurdles for the contingency election. On the other hand, the 12th amendment is pretty unambiguous that for THIS PURPOSE of electing a POTUS in a contingent, that quorum is met by 2/3s of states being represented, regardless of political party or number of reps present.

I would think that Trump could sue and SCOTUS would order the contingency election to proceed as dictated by the constitution.

Another aspect to look at: If massive fraud is exposed, the full house might not be seated, or the majority might end up going to the GOP. And even if Democrats maintain the majority, Pelosi might lose a great deal of legitimacy and gravitas as the head of a Party of CHEATS.
 Quoting: EarthNotAPlanet


Frankly, hoping that Nancy Pelosi will be found guilty of something legit, by the end of the fraud investigation, thus nullifying her totally! Someone would just replace her, I know.
Hoping their sense of entitlement and embodiment will suffer a huge setback after all the dirt is shaken out.
Ryain
OrAndSable

User ID: 78847297
Canada
11/22/2020 04:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WHAT IF.... A theory of the End Game for the 2020 Election...including a long story for context.
It's not that simple. The 12th Amendment - at the link just above - says "a majority of the whole number of electors appointed". If a state's results are challenged so that they have no electors appointed, then there are fewer than 538 electors total and therefore a majority is likewise less than 270.
 Quoting: ToSeek


Good observation!
OrAndSable
OrAndSable

User ID: 78847297
Canada
11/22/2020 04:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WHAT IF.... A theory of the End Game for the 2020 Election...including a long story for context.
It's not that simple. The 12th Amendment - at the link just above - says "a majority of the whole number of electors appointed". If a state's results are challenged so that they have no electors appointed, then there are fewer than 538 electors total and therefore a majority is likewise less than 270.
 Quoting: ToSeek


Good observation!
 Quoting: OrAndSable


What if electors are appointed but then abstain, though? Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 does say "each state shall appoint ... a number of electors".

Last Edited by OrAndSable on 11/22/2020 04:48 PM
OrAndSable
Deafy Wickware

User ID: 79280147
United States
11/22/2020 05:27 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WHAT IF.... A theory of the End Game for the 2020 Election...including a long story for context.
I think the plain reading of the amendment is that it is the states that will vote, that it is a quorum of the states (50 states), and the amendement expressly provides that is 2/3 of the states (34 if you round up).

And then it goes on to say that a state is present for quorum purposes if a member or members are present. That means if ANY member of a state's slate of house members shows up, that that state is present for quorum purposes.

So yes, Republicans control 26 delegations. But there are Republicans ON the "democrat" state delegations as well. They will show up, even if the Democrats from their state do not. And when they do, that means their state was present for quorum purposes, even if all that states Democrats boycott it (and they won't they can't, because that same vote is when they accept the electoral college, which they want to see happen, if that is what happens). "...Shall choose immediately by ballot the President...."

Once all 50 states are there, there by at least one member (even if a republican), then we have a quorum, and the vote is taken, where a majority "of the states" are required for a president to be elected. And there are 26 republican controlled delegations, and that, is a majority.

Furthermore, Trump (even under the current map) "won" 25 states popular vote. It could well also mean that even if that state is "Democrat controlled" it is possible that the state will not want to overrule the will of the people of that state. I am not up enough on politics to say if that is the case (ex. say Idaho went for Trump, but when you add up their House representatives, there are more dems than republicans), are they really going to cast their vote contrary to the vote of their people?
 Quoting: Justice4all


I'm sure this is correct. The Amendment says nothing about every member of a state's delegation be present. Presumably, only one member need be present, and ass Justice4All says, there are Republicans in most, if not all of the democunt legislative states.

The whole thing about if the House can't make a decision, I would think, is more directed to circumstances where there are 3 or more candidates in contention. That used to be common, until the Repubicrats got ride of all the other parties, so they could pretend to fight.

He's also right in saying no state is going to want to be the one that keeps the country from having a President. They'll all vote.
"Peace in our time? All it took was everybody about to die."

“The way I see it, there’s only three kinds of people in this world. Bad ones, ones you follow, and ones you need to protect.”

- Amos Burton
Deafy Wickware

User ID: 79280147
United States
11/22/2020 05:30 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WHAT IF.... A theory of the End Game for the 2020 Election...including a long story for context.
Good morning GLP friends and foes!

Retirement is grand. I never thought my favorite part of not "working" anymore would be chopping and stacking wood and listening to podcasts.

If you'd let me, I'd like to take a few minutes of your day to lay out a possible scenario and please (as the internet will always do, see Cunningham's Law) correct me if any of my speculation is incorrect/misinformed.

It appears that Trump's plan is to challenge (through the courts) the legitimacy of several key states' election results, eventually leading to the SCOTUS where three of Trump's picks worked together on a similar situation in 2000 Bush v. Gore.

[link to www.cnn.com (secure)]

This would eventually lead to neither candidate reaching 270 electoral votes, which would activate the second half of the 12th amendment, putting the vote for the President in the hands of the House of Representatives, not by individual representative, but by state. Republicans control 26 state delegations, while Democrats hold 23.

[link to www.law.cornell.edu (secure)]

So Trump becomes president again and we "MAGA" for four more years/fall headlong into civil war, right?

Well...not necessarily, and let me explain why with a little story. In my mid 40s I got duped into being on the board of directors for a fairly large, multi-state non-profit. A professional acquaintance (lets call him Rick) was on the board, a seat was opening up and Rick asked if I'd be interested in joining the board. I won't go into too much details as I enjoy a bit of internet anonymity but if you live or work in Washington State, Oregon or Northern Cali you would recognize the name. I only say that to say that my initial reaction was "oh wow, these guys are big and legit, seems like a good idea to give back and help a good cause." The process was akin to a job interview, I had a panel interview that went great (don't mean to toot my own horn but I was a shoe in) and then a full background check (for D&O insurance). Some paperwork later I was a board member with a fancy head shot on their website and everything. Important to note, I was the eighth board member, and I would learn that as per our bylaws 8 was the minimum. This explained why the board seemed a bit rushed to fill the seat. And here I thought I was special.

A day after it became official I got a call from Rick asking if I was interested in going out for lunch, I said sure. Couple days later I meet him at a local restaurant, except he's not alone, three of the other board members are there with him. We eat, lots of small talk and getting to know each other, ended up having lots of mutual connections (one of the guys was in the same industry so a lot of our network overlapped) and the vibe was pretty friendly. Pretty quickly the conversation turns to the politics of the board, and things going on, lots of history between the board members, some government political connections and personality conflicts and stuff, then the real stuff came out. Turned out these guys suspected that the director was sleeping with one of the board members (who just happened to be the treasurer) and that there was possible embezzlement. -THANKS RICK FOR LETTING ME KNOW-. Five or six months prior Rick had put forth a motion for an independent, third party audit to be performed yearly as part of our budget process (this practice is industry standard now for practically all $1 mil+ non-profits). I guess the motion was struck down after a tie (Rick and these three guys voting yea) and the rest voting nay, with the president getting the nay tie breaking vote. My understanding was that the excuse given by the nay board members at the time was the potential cost of the audit, and because Rick didn't have any numbers in front of them they shot it down.

Well I guess Rick and these three guys pretended to drop it and nothing else was mentioned about it. Secretly, knowing that a board seat was opening up (which I filled) they just sat on their hands and waited, hoping the new sucker (me) would vote with them the next time they brought it up, which they did, at my first board meeting. -THANKS AGIAN RICK- So for those of you who've never had to deal with the narcolepsy inducing formality of a board of directors meeting you should know it's extremely formal, everything to be discussed is printed out and handed out prior to the meeting, the president has their "Roberts rules of order" book and a copy of the bylaws sitting next to them, and to their right is the board secretary notepad and pen ready to roll. Probably a good hour of "housekeeping" as we called it, small updates on projects and staffing, each board member presenting something from their committee. Then the treasurer gives a budget update, forecast and presents any capital expenditure requests over a certain $$ limit that the director doesn't have authority to approve. This is where it all started to go down hill. I bashfully raised my hand like I was in kindergarten, was given the table and asked the simple question "what was the directors limit?".

Simple, innocent question. Well, unfortunately that question was all that was needed for me looked at with dagger eyes by the treasurer. See, in the non-profit executive world when dealing with money you only have two types of people on a board: Spenders and Savers. This wasn't a question a spender would ask, so now, new to the board, I have (in my first words officially spoken) gained the scarlet letter of a Saver. This garnered a smirk by Rick and a couple of the other guys I went to lunch with. My question was answered within a millisecond by the treasurer, "5 thousand dollars." I smiled and said thank you. The meeting moved on until the "unfinished business" section near the very end. Rick presented his motion, but this time he had some cost estimates from a reputable accounting firm out of Portland that specialized in non-profits. To me the price range seemed fair given the size of the company. Initially there was humming and hawing and some debate about the necessity of it and then the treasurer went into a diatribe about how much she hated quickbooks (this was in the mid 90s mind you) and how she was trained on peachtree and how they switched last year and she how against it she was and if this firm even knew how to use quickbooks. Meanwhile this whole time the president was flipping through the bylaws and then lit up and said that our bylaws require a minimum of 3 competitive bids for any contracted service. At this point Rick began arguing the point, saying the motion was not to accept a bid or pick a specific company but to establish the third party auditing requirements in the bylaws. In seconds the president denied the motion and the issue was dropped.

So, the cards are on the table now. Next month rolls around and lo' and behold it's November, not any November it's 1996. Our normal meeting Monday falls on voting day and most of the board (including Rick) are huge democrats excited to see Clinton get re-elected so they decided to cancel the November meeting. Ended up talking to Rick sometime in November and he indicated he didn't get the 3 needed bids, he had gotten 6, good old passive aggressive power move there. So fast forward to our Monday meeting. Upon arriving we're told the president isn't feeling well, and he wouldn't be there. So we're there waiting, and the treasurer seem to be no-shows as well. We wait for her for 15-20 minutes, then start the meeting. With the President not present the VP (the other nay board member) is running the show. We go through all the dog and pony show to get to Rick presenting his motion again, this time with the 6 bids. With the treasurer and president not there I don't think it had the impact Rick was hoping. After presenting all the bids Rick calls for the motion to be voted on. The VP shook his head and said no, Rick asked why. The VP opened the bylaws and began reading. The requirements of our bylaws to pass any motion with financial impact on the non-profit required the secret word this entire story has been leading to: Quorum.

Quorum is an interesting thing. For those of you who are unaware quorum is the minimum amount of warm bodies a governing board (based on Roberts Rules of Order) needs in order to pass motions or laws or whatever. A simple majority is 51% but a quorum is defined by whatever the rule makers say, usually 2/3rds.

Our bylaws stated the board should have a minimum of 8 board members and a maximum of 12, and quorum was defined 2/3rds with a minimum of 7. So what did that mean? We couldn't vote....well I guess we could, but it wouldn't be legally binding. So we had to wait until the next meeting. This time the treasurer was on vacation and the president was on a business trip. This went on two more months, until we our March meeting and thankfully everyone showed up. Funny thing was, our financial year ended in February, so the March meeting was the yearly budgetary meeting which was 3 hours of non-stop numbers...grants, scholarships, endowments, the works. We FINALLY get around to Rick's motion, and with sick smiles on the president and treasurers' faces, they thank Rick for his research and due diligence with all the bids and they approve the motion. After the motion was passed Rick asked for another motion to select the accounting firm, to which the president said it was unnecessary to even look at the bids this meeting due to the fact that the first audit wouldn't be performed for almost a year, to which Rick, myself and the three other board members that all went out for lunch together got wide eyed and knew at that point SOMETHING was up.

But it didn't matter. Whatever cooking of the books needed to be done was done before the audit the next year. I stayed out my 2 year term then bowed out. I enjoyed being a part of the process but something was sketchy and I didn't really feel like sticking around to find out. Come to find out years later, that treasurer was sleeping with the director, the president and several other staff members. She actually ended up in politics, guess that's what you do when you're good at screwing people.


So coming back around...


From the 12th Amendment:

But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Do you see it? The end game? MAGA-kids think that Trump's 4D chess is going to end in the House voting him back in, but they fail to see that the true power of this process is in the QUORUM of the House, which the Republicans DO NOT HAVE. DO YOU SEE IT NOW? All the Democrats need to do is not show up to the vote in the House and the Senate and Nancy Pelosi is the 46th President of the United States. Once she gets that pen all hell will break loose (literally and figuratively) as Trump has spent the last 4 years establishing (through the backing of the SCOTUS) INSANE executive powers in executive orders. Pelosi could care less if the Senate and the House don't meet again for 4 years, she can rescind all of Trumps EO's and do pretty much whatever she wants. I'm not a Pelosi fan, she's got that Cruella de Vil meets Jezebel vibe to her, and I can only imagine what insane EO's she will write.

I guess what I'm saying is that when this is all said and done the Trumpers will wish they had rolled over and handed the (possibly stolen) election to Biden.

God save America.
 Quoting: russianbot2020





DO YOU want to discuss your personal work history because you are retired now? nobody wants to hear that crap and your personal experience by far is a poor comparison to what is at stake here, you know the heart & soul of America??

dumb fuck
 Quoting: Bailey Howe


Thank you. Reading all of that to simply come to the explanation of a quorum was a waste.

Dumb story, and kind of pointless, really.
"Peace in our time? All it took was everybody about to die."

“The way I see it, there’s only three kinds of people in this world. Bad ones, ones you follow, and ones you need to protect.”

- Amos Burton
russianbot2020  (OP)

User ID: 79533247
United States
11/22/2020 05:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WHAT IF.... A theory of the End Game for the 2020 Election...including a long story for context.
Thank you. Reading all of that to simply come to the explanation of a quorum was a waste.

Dumb story, and kind of pointless, really.
 Quoting: Deafy Wickware


And yet here you are, commenting on my thread. Gotta take a certain stupid to waste your time commenting...

Pointless? I beg to differ.

Quorum can be a WEAPON in the hands of those who UNDERSTAND how to wield it. I've witnessed it first hand.

I had HOPED my story would illustrate how POWERLESS one can be in the face of procedure and how we may soon feel just as powerless.

Lots of keyboard warriors on GLP lately, heck on the whole internet. Might be time this generation hugs a l1a1 on a dark starry night and talks to God like you might meet him any moment.


Psalm 2:12

Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
ToSeek

User ID: 9653749
United States
11/22/2020 06:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: WHAT IF.... A theory of the End Game for the 2020 Election...including a long story for context.
It's not that simple. The 12th Amendment - at the link just above - says "a majority of the whole number of electors appointed". If a state's results are challenged so that they have no electors appointed, then there are fewer than 538 electors total and therefore a majority is likewise less than 270.
 Quoting: ToSeek


Good observation!
 Quoting: OrAndSable


What if electors are appointed but then abstain, though? Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 does say "each state shall appoint ... a number of electors".
 Quoting: OrAndSable


If they're appointed but don't vote, then I would think they'd still count toward the 270/538.





GLP