Posted on 11/27/2016 8:01:45 AM PST by bobsunshine
I’m getting it from the US Constitution, Amendment 12. Pretty unimpeachable source. Look it up.
” if WI,MI and PA can not meet the deadline by Dec 19th due to the recount delays, then their votes don’t count”
Nonsense.
Recount delays are no reason to not appoint electors.
In 1789 Virginia failed to appoint one of it’s electors because of trouble counting the vote.
Hasn’t happened since. This is just silly.
Actually the new Congress takes office on January 3, so the vote on January 6th is done by the new Congress.
Where are you getting that recounts which are not finished before the deadline can prevent electors from being certified by a state?
Yeah. Thanks I was looking for that one vote/state. Knew I had seen it somewhere...
Now we know the endgame.
Thanks.
An elector is “certified” once the state certifies him. If the state does not certify (say, because of a recount) then the elector is not certified. He is not certified simply because his name is known and he walks the Earth.
Who wins if it goes to each state having one vote and who would be VP?
From WI: If the recount isn’t complete by then (Dec 19th), electors from Wisconsin could meet anyway and try to have their results sent to Congress by the time it counts the votes on Jan. 6. Congress has wide latitude to decide how to count the states’ electoral votes.
Link?
The bizarre election of 1876 is instructive on the subject of electoral vote disputes.
I think the entire point of the “recount” is to slow the process down so WI, MI and PA elector votes are not counted in the tally on Dec. 19th. Then it forces the decision by the House. Stein/Clinton want to create a sense that Trump wasn’t duly elected. What a mess if this recount forces the House to “elect” the Pres. and Senate to pick the VP.
I heard that WI will propose a new law for next year that only the top two candidates can call for a recount and only if under 1% difference. This way we don’t get all these phony scams.
You’re not getting it. I think you may be trolling. This is not going to the House.
That's the sticking point. Where does it say a recount that fails to meet the deadline would cause a state not to certify the original results?
Here’s an interesting take on that from the 2000 presidential election.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3498841/posts
They may in fact certify the original results. As I understand, state legislatures have that authority. In that case Trump wins as if none of this crap happens. However, I don’t think they are REQUIRED to certify. In that case, their electors are not certified and don’t count. Which means this whole mess is devolving to the state legislatures and only God knows what’s going to happen.
Correct.
Yes.
This sounds good to me. Screw the left and their attempt to steal the election.
It will be done per the constitution no matter what or there will be blood, liberal blood, in the streets.
People are tired of the actions of the left only being limited by what they can get aways with. The left has totally forgotten that they should do what is right, legal and ethical. Those three words, Right, Legal, and mostly Ethical are beyond their understanding.
If Penn refuses to do the recount, and Mi and Wi just drop out, Trump still has enough votes to win.
If all 3 states don't have the recount done in time, the House chooses our president and all of our voting was at least fun I suppose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.