Politics
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 2073 comments are related to the topic:
When will B/f settle presidency market?
When will B/f settle presidency market?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 2,073
|
By:
After an hour, that's all you can come up with, you utter clown?
|
|
By:
All I could come up with was accuracy, yes.
|
|
By:
FXDUX, For the 5th time !!!! Pick out the holes here ????
Hold on. I never posted a thing about "the projected vote thing"I never said anything on here until about 3 days ago when the market was acted strangely and I started reading this.Don't get mad with me - I'm only offering a different, coherent argument.Which is to say this: 1) If the 12th came into effect under the circumstances of a constitutional breakdown (electors being sent by states to support a candidate who didn't win the popular vote in that state) - then Pelosi would be POTUS - agreed ?2) Pelosi could (and would) hold that position until Biden is accepted as the next President - agreed ? |
|
By:
There is no credible scenario in this election, where neither candidate will have more than 270 votes after the states report their results.
Therefore there is no possibility of betfair being unable to say that no candidate has a majority of projected electoral college votes. Thus the twelth amendment is never going to come into play in the betfair market. |
|
By:
ffs, I'm getting there, but being waylaid by the idiot dave1357. I'm just going to ignore him from now on. Anyone else reading the forum should just bear in mind the general disclaimer that dave1357 invents random nonsense he has misunderstood and then declares it inviolate.
Picking up where I left off...... The Democrats have denied a quorum to the Twelfth Amendment vote to appoint Trump President. Which he will otherwise win. But Pence's vote goes through. This means that Mike Pence will be standing in front of the Capitol on 20 January with John Roberts, and will be sworn in as the 46th President. There are two issues with this. The first is the definition of "in accordance with the Twelfth Amendment" under Betfair's rules. And the other is the Pelosi factor. |
|
By:
more than 270 projected votes after the states report their results
|
|
By:
ffs, patience! Patience!
I read what you posted, and I'm going to address it. But in tandem with the other relevant issue. And I'm going to ignore everything dave1357 posts in betweentimes, every single post of which will be an absolutist assertion which bears no relation to the law, Betfair's rules, or any worthwhile reality whatsoever. |
|
By:
Ok, FXDUX, take your time... I'll read your reply when you're done, the legal arguments are interesting,
But, I'll put this here as a completely different topic: NOT a dig at you in any way, just ... the way things may go, The reference to the 12th in the R&Rs is prefaced by the very definite "This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election." Further: "If there is any material change to the established role or any ambiguity as to who occupies the position, then Betfair may determine, using its reasonable discretion, how to settle the market based on all the information available to it at the relevant time." And Finally, the catch-all (which I think makes all this debate null and void) "Betfair expressly reserves the right to suspend and/or void any and all bets on this market at any time if Betfair is not satisfied (in its absolute discretion) with the certainty of the outcome." Betfair is not a court of law, the net-turnover (exposure) in this market is a fraction of what is bet each week in horse-racing, common sense will prevail because that's their business model and what their customers reasonably expect based on all prior markets. Yes, this one is different (and BF said in advance it would be - bc of Trump's delaying tactics coming as expected). |
|
By:
So,
the Democrats have denied a quorum to the Twelfth Amendment vote to appoint Trump President. Which he will otherwise win. But Pence's vote goes through. This means that Mike Pence will be standing in front of the Capitol on 20 January with John Roberts, and will be sworn in as the 46th President. There are two issues with this. The first is the definition of "in accordance with the Twelfth Amendment" under Betfair's rules. And the other is the Pelosi factor. I'm going to talk about the "in accordance with the Twelfth Amendment" point first. Sorry, ffs. Patience is a virtue. Betfair's rules state that, if it comes to it, "this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution." The Twelfth Amendment provides for a vote to choose Mike Pence as the Vice President. That is a procedure that is necessary to accord with in order for Mike Pence to be inaugurated on 20 January. If the Democrats block Trump's appointment with his 26 delegations, and we can all agree on how pathological their need is to stop him, specifically, at any cost, then the office of President Elect will be vacant on 20 January, and Pence, because of his Twelfth Amendment appointment, will step in and become the President. But but but. Originally, the Twelfth Amendment contained the wording by which Pence would graduate from Vice President Elect to President, in the event that no President were chosen. The Twelfth Amendment still contains some residual wording indicating that the VP Elect may be called upon to become P. But that wording specified inauguration in March, and they wanted to change it to a January inauguration, so they deleted that wording and replaced it with a mechanism, in the Twentieth Amendment, appointing the VP as P in January. So, the issue is this. Does Pence being appointed in accordance with the activated provisions of the Twelfth Amendment, and thereafter being inaugurated as President by virtue of the Twentieth Amendment wording that originally derived from the Twelfth Amendment, does all of that satisfy the Betfair rule that "this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution." I would argue yes. Because Pence would have been chosen in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment, and then chosen as President, and inaugurated on 20 January. One might say, but is he the acting President? Or, can we truly read the Twentieth Amendment in tandem with the Twelfth? But the bottom line is that we would have gone through this election process, and out the other side was one man, chosen in accordance with the Twelfth Amendment and then chosen as President and swearing an inauguration oath on 20 January, and that man would be Mike Pence. Personally, I think that passes the smell test, and Betfair ought thereby to regard Pence as the winner of the market. And there is a clue in their rules that they will do this. "Please note that candidates in this market will not be partially settled and will remain in the market until it is fully settled. This is to allow customers to continue trading candidates that they have positions on and because each candidate is still a valid runner in this market." So, Betfair are clearly indicating that by allowing candidates to remain in the market, they are still valid runners. And to be valid runners, they must by basic logic have a valid path to the Presidency. Aside from a meteorite striking Washington and leaving everyone bar one politician flat as a pancake, that must mean that the avenue carved out once the Twelfth Amendment is activated possesses the capacity of broader extension. |
|
By:
Did you see the clip of Pompeo?
|
|
By:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1326230270421426183
|
|
By:
The other issue is Pelosi.
Remember, we are in this position because red legislatures sent electors for Trump, their blue governors sent electors for Biden, each candidate had more than 270, the two houses of Congress couldn't agree who should have the 270, which they clearly won't at this stage, being Lower House Dem and Upper House Rep, and so the electoral college was binned and we moved on to the Twelfth Amendment. And under the Twelfth Amendment, Trump and not Biden has the requisite delegations majority of 26, and will win and become President, unless the Dems are prepared to deny a quorum to the vote to elect him. Which I think they will, if they can, because the one thing they care about more than anything else in the world is stopping him, specifically. And when they've done this, Pence, having won the other vote, the VP vote, in the Senate, which he is on course to do, and which Harris definitely won't do (no majority), will become President. Why would the Dems block the vote on Trump and not the vote on Pence? Well, this is where we enter conjecture. As I said, it's no light matter to frustrate the proper operation of the Constitution. If there's an electoral college failure then the Twelfth Amendment is designed to provide a solution, the answer, and give power to the person who has the Lower House delegations (Trump) or failing that, the Upper House majority (Pence). It's one thing for the Dems to block Trump, which I think is their bottom line psychological imperative. But if they were to be able and willing to deny a quorum to Pence's vote too, then both offices would be empty on 20 January, and under the Presidential Succession Act, the Speaker of the Lower House would be inaugurated. That's currently Pelosi. Pelosi could in theory step down, and engineer Biden to be temporarily appointed Speaker so as to be inaugurated. All Speakers thus far have been members of the Lower House, but there is no specific requirement. She could stand down for anyone on Betfair's list. Hence - that clue again - the wording in their rules that all candidates are still valid runners. So it really comes down to what powers and what length of term the President inaugurated on 20 January would have. It would come down to what long term political and electoral damage might be caused by trampling over the proper operation of the Twelfth Amendment in this way. It may be that the Democrats settle for removing Trump - their emotional bottom line - and decide that the least worst option is not to block Pence. That's the possibility I am interested in, given the current odds. It's both procedurally directly feasible, and politically tenable. The clue that the Dems will block Trump's vote under the Twelfth Amendment and open the door to Pence is something Pelosi said recently. She said that if Trump took it to Congress, there would be "no light at the end of the tunnel." I interpret that as a promise to block his Twelfth Amendment appointment by denying a quorum. I don't interpret that, necessarily, as a promise to totally desecrate the intention of the Twelfth Amendment by blocking Pence too. HENCE PENCE for me, at least. If the Speaker - whoever that may be, Pelosi or otherwise - became President on 20 January, because of both Trump's and Pence's votes being blocked, then the question would again arise, as before it did with Pence: was this person chosen as President in accordance with the provisions of the Twelfth Amendment? If you take the narrow view that that must mean only the specific vote for President under the Twelfth Amendment, then Betfair's wording that other candidates remain valid runners again makes no sense. For it to make sense, there has to be some kind of valid way through - unless we're really claiming that they're valid because of an apocryphal meteorite. That person would have been chosen, and it would, again, have been in accordance with the provisions of the Twelfth Amendment, in the sense that the Twelfth Amendment process was activated, its procedures were followed to completion, and produced an outcome, and this appointment flowed directly from that outcome. So, I would argue that yes, if a Speaker is appointed on 20 January, with John Roberts, a bible, a label of #46, and as a result of the Twelfth Amendment process having been activated and brought to a close, then that person also ought to be deemed to satisfy the definition of the winner of this market. |
|
By:
Yeah, I saw the clip.
They're going to go for it. They're going to use the DoJ to try to go through every ballot in every swing state. With the aim that the Republican state legislatures in Pennsylvania, Arizona, Wisconsin and Georgia - all top-down red red red - refuse to certify a Biden win. Long shot or sure thing - time will tell - but there's no doubt that if this scenario can unfold, it is going to. |
|
By:
All utterly irrelevant to the betfair market
|
|
By:
that was re 10.48 post
|
|
By:
c&p
"Anyone else reading the forum should just bear in mind the general disclaimer that dave1357 invents random nonsense he has misunderstood and then declares it inviolate." |
|
By:
FXDUX,
This line: "Please note that candidates in this market will not be partially settled and will remain in the market until it is fully settled. This is to allow customers to continue trading candidates that they have positions on and because each candidate is still a valid runner in this market." I think it's self-explanatory in betting context. Compared to, say, a football championship - if you lay a team and they can't win then you get access to the winnings - in effect, you get your stake refunded and green shows on the other teams. In relation to the election market - well, everyone in the race is somehow still (apart from death) a possible winner. And, yes, I've read about almost exactly the scenario you've outlined - but also another... I don't have the detailed legal arguments but the broad strokes: In a case of a constitutional crisis originating from competing sets of electors / electors representing a candidate who didn't win the popular vote in their state, Democrats would shut down the entire process as the Electoral Count Act explicitly states that there is no moving on (in the voting) to the next state in line until all disputes are resolved. So, the Democrats can stop the whole process. Pence (acting as head of the Senate) could try to continue the voting but the House could refuse to participate, shutting down the counting. While the stalemate persisted Pelosi could claim the right to serve as acting P for as long as Senate Rs refuse to accept Biden's status as P-elect based on the popular votes. |
|
By:
Dave, did you see the Pompeo clip ? That's the top diplomat in America talking about what some may regard as sedition and/or treason, and he's doing it with a smile on his face.
|
|
By:
Shortly to be the former top diplomat
 |
|
By:
Overall, my assessment is that Pelosi or any other Speaker at the conclusion of a Twelfth Amendment process where no President Elect or Vice President Elect is chosen, is arguably and probably compliant with Betfair's rules as market winner. You can't let the runners run, and then say, on a long shot coming in, sorry, the only feasible way under the rules for this valid candidate validly to win was not valid.
I'm not Betfair. But Pence, assuming they block Trump's vote but for political and constitutional reasons not his, would be, in my view, unequivocally compliant, given that on top of all of the above, he ran in the election and under this scenario literally was chosen under the Twelfth Amendment, albeit that the elevation from VP to P upon the blocking of Trump was prescribed in wording that used to exist in the Twelfth Amendment but for pure convenience = the change of date - was reworked into the Twentienth Amendment. |
|
By:
Ah, I remember now. FXDUX was the guy that agued that in the event of a tie 269-269 Kamala Harris would become President
 |
|
By:
I guess we will be treated to a Pelosi ramp next
|
|
By:
https://community.betfair.com/politics/go/thread/view/94150/31673373/biden-covid-harris-the-twelfth-amendment-and-6-january-2021#flvWelcomeHeader
This is the thread where FXDUX claims Harris will be President. |
|
By:
Maybe FXDUX will suggest that in the event of a tie, Harris, Pence and Pelosi will share the Presidency?
|
|
By:
FXDUX • November 10, 2020 10:58 PM GMT
c&p "Anyone else reading the forum should just bear in mind the general disclaimer that dave1357 invents random nonsense he has misunderstood and then declares it inviolate You are a liar and fantasist. You know that it isn't possible for the twelfth amendment to impact this betfair market unless one or more states are prevented from participating in the EC process. You can't provide a credible scenario for this happening and continue to write screeds about irrelevant possibilities. |
|
By:
Dead-heat rules apply.
It's clear Fxdux is a ramper who's red on Biden and cannot separate this position from his interpretation of the rules. |
|
By:
I reckon he was probably a tea boy in an estate agency.
|
|
By:
One lump or two?
|
|
By:
ffs, I'm happy to describe what I understand to be the law and procedure but I don't want to overreach and start proclaiming myself an expert on things where I am inexpert.
But it seems that you are suggesting that the Democrats could call a halt to the Electoral Count Act proceedings and somehow dodge the Twelfth Amendment and install Pelosi right there and then. This does not sound right to me, subject to my first line above. Apart from the fact that the Electoral Count Act is not held in very high regard, being seen as unclear and contradictory and by some as outright unconstitutional, if there is an intractable snarl-up in the ECA proceedings, then by definition no one would have been awarded a majority, and that leads directly on to the Twelfth Amendment vote. Maybe what you are suggesting is that they would jam up the ECA, and in the blink of an eye thereafter block the Twelfth Amendment votes, and move onto Pelosi's installation on 20 January. But that leaves a gap of 14 days. If the Democrats decided to trample over the proper and due operation of the Twelfth Amendment by blocking both Trump and Pence's appointments, then I don't know what would happen in those fourteen days. Would Trump meekly pack his bags? Or would he seek a ruling from the Supreme Court on the wilful action to deny power being handed to the person in control of the Lower House delegations (him) or the Upper House delegations (Pence). Is it a coup d'etat for the Speaker of the House to seize power, the Presidency, by obstructing the proper operation of Constitutional provisions which were designed to hand power on in a certain way? It's an extreme and unprecedented paradigm. And it's an extreme and unprecedented paradigm with six Conservative judges out of nine, and possibly a brewing Democrat clean sweep of Lower House and Upper House (in the sense of VP's casting vote once in office). It would be one hell of a Mexican standoff. And when you have that kind of situation, and there needs to be a way found out of things heading past the brink of the abyss, that's when forced compromises like continuuing to block Trump but waving Pence through happen. |
|
By:
utterly irrelevant to the betfair market
|
|
By:
You can attack me all you like, but the one thing you don't do is dispute in detail accurately and thoroughly, what I've posted.
You don't do it because you can't do it, and you can't do it because it's correct. The rest of you are baiters, but Dave, you are truly a pathetic moron. I'll leave it to anyone else reading this thread to do their own research and make their own decision as to who on this thread is analysing things accurately, and who is Dave.. For completeness, before the election, it was forecast that the Democrats would take the Senate. That would have put Harris in pole position under the Twelfth Amendment. They didn't. While the Democrats could still "take" the Senate by winning both outstanding Georgia races and exercising control via Harris's casting vote, she will not be in a position to cast any such vote on 6 January. So, post-election, because of how things turned out, Harris now has no avenue to become President via the Twelfth Amendment. Her avenue is via Biden becoming incapacitated or dying between now and January. Given that Pence is now the one with the Twelfth Amendment avenue, and not her, and given that the result of the election was not "Wisconsin 17% (sic)" but "Wisconsin 0.7% and the GOP planning for the long haul (sic)", Pence is where my attention has settled. |
|
By:
Away and put the kettle on.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
The only person you're kettling is yourself by resorting to baiting in lieu of having any worthwhile reply to my accurate and comprehensive summations of what lies ahead under certain conditions.
You were both wrong that Betfair would settle the market immediately and you're both wrong now. You're idiots intent on misleading anyone who reads this thread, and I've done my bit to clarify and illuminate as best I could. |
|
By:
You can take the tray away now.
|
|
By:
By the way, Dave, I like your username - almost as much as I like Terminator 3.
|
|
By:
If you have any other 1000/1 shots you wish to humiliate yourself further with, you are welcome here anytime. (Don't forget the tea bags though).
|
|
By:
We make our own luck in life, politicspunter, good and bad, and in the absence of saving graces, we never have a full picture of when we are making for ourselves disproportionate bad luck.
As you can see from this thread, I've had some time on my hands. I'm sure I'll find a way to keep busy - elsewhere. |
|
By:
I like your username too.
|
|
By:
the position is quite clear and doesn't require reading FSDUX's almost endless ravings about the twelfth amendment because the betfair market will be settled before it becomes an issue.
This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market. So bf will settle, at the latest, as soon as the counts are certified and they are able to project Biden having a majority of electoral votes. Note that the actual composition of the electoral college or who they vote for is irrelevant to Betfair - that is a subsequent event and won't affect settlement. So if the states certify and a candidate has a majority of projected votes betfair pays the winners In the event that no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the projected Electoral College votes, this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The twelfth amendment can clearly only come in to play for betfair if there is no projected majority of EC votes. That simply can't happen without some states being unable to participate in the EC process or an impossibly unlikely rejig of multiple states to give a tie. FSDUX can't supply a credible scenario for this to happen, yet writes screeds about the ramifications (probably plagiarised) rather than the actual position with trump's legal challenges, which one would have thought would be much more valid. |