Why the Dems are Stuck with Cankles

self | 9/11/2016 | LS

[Cheerio]

The technicality in all of this is the electoral college system. We don’t really vote for a candidate. We vote for electors who then vote on the candidate.

But 29 state require their electors to be bound...here

State Control of Electors There is no federal law that requires electors to vote as they have pledged, but 29 states and the District of Columbia have legal control over how their electors vote in the Electoral College. This means their electors are bound by state law and/or by state or party pledge to cast their vote for the candidate that wins the statewide popular vote. At the same time, this also means that there are 21 states in the union that have no requirements of, or legal control over, their electors. Therefore, despite the outcome of a state’s popular vote, the state’s electors are ultimately free to vote in whatever manner they please, including an abstention, with no legal repercussions. The states with legal control over their electors are the following 29 and D.C.:

Alabama (Code of Ala. §17-19-2)
Alaska (Alaska Stat. §15.30.090)
California (Election Code §6906)
Colorado (CRS §1-4-304)
Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. §9-176)
Delaware (15 Del C §4303)
District of Columbia (§1-1312(g))
Florida (Fla. Stat. §103.021(1))
Hawaii (HRS §14-28)
Maine (21-A MRS §805)
Maryland (Md Ann Code art 33, §8-505)
Massachusetts (MGL, ch. 53, §8)
Michigan (MCL §168.47)
Mississippi (Miss Code Ann §23-15-785)
Montana (MCA §13-25-104)
Nebraska (§32-714)
Nevada (NRS §298.050)
New Mexico (NM Stat Ann §1-15-9)
North Carolina (NC Gen Stat §163-212)
Ohio (ORC Ann §3505.40)
Oklahoma (26 Okl St §10-102)
Oregon (ORS §248.355)
South Carolina (SC Code Ann §7-19-80)
Tennessee (Tenn Code Ann §2-15-104(c))
Utah (Utah Code Ann §20A-13-304)
Vermont (17 VSA §2732)
Virginia (§24.2-203)
Washington (RCW §29.71.020)
Wisconsin (Wis Stat §7.75)
Wyoming (Wyo Stat §22-19-108)


DOESN'T THIS HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF MAKING THE 2000 PRES ELECTION SEEM LIKT A PIECE OF CAKE?

Making predictions for the 2016 election would seem to be extremely risky.

[Know et al]

They know she can't handle the job of being president. If they can drag her across the finish line, then their number 2 can then step in an continue the fundamental transformation of the U. S.

The whole purpose is to keep the power.

[xzins]

I suspect there are death/disability clauses in the law just as there are in the constitution. I haven’t seen the laws of the various states, and I’m no lawyer, but it just makes sense to me that they would not be that short-sighted.

[LS]

We have a winner.

[LS]

I think you’re wrong as hell. We have pretty good studies that even the so-called early voting fraud wasn’t a fraud. It just moved voters from November to September/October.

[Panzerlied]

“We shall see. Unfortunately, these are Interesting Times.”

The quintessential Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times,

[little jeremiah]

Just checking to make sure I can re-post elsewhere with attribution?

[LS]

Sure. I don’t do blogs. If I really need to get something out, I post it here, then tweet, not FB first.

[little jeremiah]

I am wondering what would happen if Hitlery died, either before, or after, the election.

Also wondering, elsewhere I read a quote (from where...???, maybe I can find) that if a candidate should die before election but after being nominated, the DNC members would vote among themselves to elect a new candidate. Of course that doesn’t sound possible, after reading LS’s article.

[little jeremiah]

Got it now, no need for you to reply again.

:-) thank you!

[little jeremiah]

IMHO the reason she is running is to avoid prison. Her and plenty of others...

[little jeremiah]

And I am hoping and considering, that he may do exactly that. At least 2 rallies (or could be three) that I listened to - and I haven’t listened to even a third of them - he said specifically that if elected he will go after Bergdahl, Hitlery - AND OTHERS.....

[mulder1]

“INTERESTING” maybe they should get an “intern” to work on this”

[Savage Beast]

I think he will. So do they, and that’s good reason for them to be desperate—EXTREMELY DESPERATE—DANGEROUSLY DESPERATE! They are cornered!

[little jeremiah]

One thing I was thinking today, Cankles is only as powerful as people think she is. If it looks as though she won’t win and/or won’t “make it” in some way, donors won’t give her $ for campaign, or the “Foundation”, and thus - total loss of power. It’s not as though the Clintons are the richest people in the world. They’re pretty small potatoes in the world of the vastly wealthy.

[Degaston]

Three big factors working together will keep her on the ballot for November 8th.

1. Time is of the essence to change candidates as the longer this drags on then the more complicated it becomes.

2. This is not ONE election but 51 elections with each of their own set of rules/procedures. It doesn’t become ONE election unless nobody gets 270 or more Electoral votes. And then it becomes like 192 years ago and a matter for the 50 collection of state delegations to the US House to decide regarding who gets elected to the office of President.

3. If the Dem’s decide to replace Hillary then it’ll only go smoothly if Hillary is fully on-board with it. Anyone who watched the Lewinsky scandal, the 2008 Obama-Clinton battle over Florida, and the Wikileaks release of DNC emails ought to know that Hillary is not likely to roll over.

If you don’t want any Democrat to be President 2017-2021 then the best thing to do (at least the next 4 weeks) is to pray hard for Hillary to have a good month of health and then to go back to “normal”.

[HartleyMBaldwin]

Have it your way. I’m just saying that the ballots in this state are clear that the voter in a Presidential election is casting a vote for electors, not for the candidate. How the courts might rule is quite another matter, true, but irrelevant to my post.

Personally, I don’t think that a case could be won where the basis is so easily proven false, simply by reading the ballot, and any such ruling would be overturned at once. Still, my tinfoil hat was severely damaged in a recent hailstorm, and I haven’t fashioned another yet.

[LS]

Guess you never heard of Palm Beach? The ballot was very clear-—but the courts ruled it wasn’t.

[LS]

Exactly. No one really has thought about the magnitude of pulling something like this, let alone the emotional/voter turnout implications. It’s “soooo-eeee-cide.”

[HartleyMBaldwin]

What the hell is your problem? I have said, repeatedly, that the Arizona ballot specifies the one votes for Presidential electors. This is true. I’m not interested in a bunch of crap about what I have or haven’t heard of, so GFY.