Pelosi raises possibility of becoming acting president in chaotic election outcome

[mystery-ak]

Pelosi raises possibility of becoming acting president in chaotic election outcome
by Susan Ferrechio, Chief Congressional Correspondent |
 | October 01, 2020 12:38 PM

Speaker Nancy Pelosi raised the possibility that she might become acting president if neither President Trump nor Democratic nominee Joe Biden wins enough electoral votes to declare victory in the election on or after Nov. 3.

Pelosi, a California Democrat, told reporters Thursday that she is preparing House Democrats for a potential role in determining the winner with a vote by each state delegation.

But if a majority still does not emerge for either Trump or Biden, Pelosi said, “then it goes into another range where the speaker becomes the [president]. It’s complicated after that.”

It is rare for the House to play a role in determining the outcome of a presidential election, and it hasn’t happened in 150 years. But Pelosi is girding party lawmakers to play a role if the election is so close that neither Trump nor Biden is the electoral winner.

more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/pelosi-raises-possibility-of-becoming-acting-president-in-chaotic-election-outcome

[XenaLee]

Uhhh...... restraining myself from saying what I'm thinking....but....

if the left wants to see a "real" revolution....

just try making Pelosi the president.

[240B]

This is not new. Pelosi, with her monumental gargantuan ego, claimed she would be the 'acting President' when Trump was elected. She considered Trump to be like an infant or handicapped, and unable to discharge his duties. So she placed herself in that role. Obviously nothing came of her declaration of self-coronation, but this tells us that 'acting President' is something that she has always wanted. Pelosi wants a real-life absolute coup d'état.

If she can push Trump out of the way and claim his seat, she will do it in any possible way she can.

[RedHead]

That presupposes that the election will not be decided by December 14 when the electoral college meets, a highly unlikely event.  It also assumes that the Democrats retain the House, that she is speaker, and that she wins her election to begin with.

[Wingnut]

That presupposes that the election will not be decided by December 14 when the electoral college meets, a highly unlikely event.  It also assumes that the Democrats retain the House, that she is speaker, and that she wins her election to begin with.

When did any of those things ever get in the way of those swamp people's plans?

They make the plan then they work the plan.    Get with the program girl.

[Hoodat]

If the House Speaker does not understand the succession of power, then that person constitutes a grave threat to our Republic and is imminently unqualified to hold her current position.

And to think these same people complained about what Al Haig said after Reagan got shot.

[Hoodat]

That presupposes that the election will not be decided by December 14 when the electoral college meets, a highly unlikely event.  It also assumes that the Democrats retain the House, that she is speaker, and that she wins her election to begin with.

It also presupposes that the Constitution (specifically Amendment XX) doesn't exist, which for a Democrat is actually quite natural.

[Fishrrman]

Whatever electoral votes are reported on December 14/15, are the votes that will decide the election.

Those states which fail to present electors by December 14 will be ignored (per the Constitution) and thus lose their representation in the Electoral College.

The questions which will end up before the Supreme Court (and this WILL end up there) will then be:
- What will constitute "a majority" of the electoral votes necessary to elect the president?
- Will it be a majority of those electors present at the voting?
or
- Must it always remain "270" (a majority of all possible electoral votes that might be cast)?

Hmmmm....
OK, Briefers....
What do YOU think "the majority" should be...?

[Hoodat]

Whatever electoral votes are reported on December 14/15, are the votes that will decide the election.

Those states which fail to present electors by December 14 will be ignored (per the Constitution) and thus lose their representation in the Electoral College.

The questions which will end up before the Supreme Court (and this WILL end up there) will then be:
- What will constitute "a majority" of the electoral votes necessary to elect the president?
- Will it be a majority of those electors present at the voting?
or
- Must it always remain "270" (a majority of all possible electoral votes that might be cast)?

Hmmmm....
OK, Briefers....
What do YOU think "the majority" should be...?

It's a majority of the electors present.

I think the Democrats will attempt to rig the election by blocking electors from casting ballots.  Let's say Pennsylvania goes for Trump, but their Democrat governor runs interference by delaying certification of mail-in ballots and withholds the appointment of delegates past the deadline.  That would be 20 Trump electoral votes that would go uncounted.  So Biden would need only 260 votes to win instead of 270.  And Trump would be 20 short of what he actually got.

[sneakypete]

Against her will,of course.

She would do it "for the good of the country" if we begged her.