[LS]

Let me use this thread to ask all of you this question, which I think even Rush got wrong yesterday:

My understanding of the Constitution is that there is NO set number of electors (obviously, there cannot be because we keep adding states, thus, electors). The Constitution only refers to the “majority” of the electoral college.

So, it seems that if this effort is designed to deny Trump a “majority” of the EC, it’s worse than silly. If WI is tossed, he still has a majority of the remaining votes, and wins. If MI is tossed, he wins. If PA is tossed, he wins. If ALL THREE are tossed . . . he wins.

This never goes to the House. He is never “delegitimized.”

Please let me know if any of you have information that suggests otherwise.

[dp0622]

Isn’t her insane idea to get the electoral votes from these three states after she “proves” she won?

So ludicrous it’s laughable, but just for argument’s sake.

Good thing only Green party and dem volunteers will be counting :)

[SamAdams76]

I'm no electoral scholar but a quick review of past elections (going back before we had 50 states) shows that the simple majority of available electoral votes was the presidential winner. I couldn't find a single example of a state being excluded from the electoral count although the election of 1876 was very interesting, with four states not decided until practically inauguration day. Despite getting nearly 4 million less in the popular vote, Hayes (R) won with 185 electoral votes with Tilden (D) getting 184. The story of that election makes for very interesting reading.

My take is that the Dec 19 Electoral College election will proceed even if theoretically WI, MI or PA are not ready - with their votes being counted later. But I think this is academic at this point and all three states will be part of the Dec 19 vote (and they will all go to Trump).

Also want to point out that since 1948, we've had six elections in which the winner got less than the 306 EVs that Trump stands to get.

1948 - Truman (303)
1960 - JFK (303)
1968 - Nixon (301)
1976 - Carter (297)
2000 - GWB (271)
2004 - GWB (286)

Should be pointed out that in 1948, only 266 votes were needed as AK and HA weren't states yet.

Anyway, except for 2000, I don't remember any fuss in those close elections about recounts and whether or not the winner should be considered legitimate.

The 1960 election, no doubt at all that Richard Nixon should have won that. That one was stolen by JFK.

[seastay]

I don’t think just getting the three States tossed is the end goal, its just the beginning. Obviously their goal is to manufacture the idea of fraud. Just the phony claim by a professor without any shred of evidence has given the credibility to recount three states . Now imagine if they can manufacture “evidence” of voter fraud, evidence they planted for the specific purpose of creating doubt that other states were stolen , on a massive scale ? They can gen this all up with some fake forensic marker to “prove” illegal votes were cast, and can claim in the time frame they have to work with , it will be impossible to identify just how many fraudulent votes there are. They can claim by random sample projected on the states as a whole fraud is. huge and unprecedented. But of course these examples they will trot out will not be at all random , but planted during the recount or , possibly even before the election, so they know exactly where to look. this is just a theory, but nobody seems to be able to explain why they would be so stupid to spend millions if dollars with only the possibilities of flipping all three not going to happen , or invalidating the three states , taking them off the table for both candidates when Trump will still have the majority and cant loose. However, if they plant doubt that every state has massive fraud, it will lead to a crisis , unrest, perhaps even other un for-seen remedies by their favorite hand picked judges ? Remember, they were granted recount just on a accusation , so imagine if they manufacture fake evidence of a nation wide fraud and it becomes in their minds more than accusation but fake random evidence.. its all about manufacturing fake news to them, we should be well aware of tgat by now.

[Georgia Girl 2]

This recount effort is just a final sore loserman knashing and wailing as the progressives are totally swept out of power.

[ScottfromNJ]

I believe you’re correct, but I would also add as per Article II of the constitution, the state legislatures have the power to certify the original results and appoint their electors anyway.

[sharkhawk]

Depends on the meaning of appointed. Congress has authorized 538 electors. If a state doesn’t send electors to the electoral college, do they still count? If a “faithless” elector leaves his choice blank, would that still be counted for the majority purposes. It’s not a simple question, and has never been litigated. Court case either way. I would guess the congress would have final say.

[Publius]

Take a look at the 1864 precedent.

[The Westerner]

LS, I wasn’t worrying about it because I thought this was not going anywhere. Only thing worrying me is that the Electoral College NOT be delayed by the Clinton/Soros team.

[RitaOK]

Does it matter what is true?

The concern, here, is that the so called “conservatives” and Republican Party has neglected influencing or teaching Civics and Government and Western History, until it’s practically so late that a child is already college bound and picking his Major before he understands a Republic!

We beat back nothing and wonder why the simplest protections become a launching point for tyrants in the USA.

The EV will come back to haunt us in future elections.

[upsdriver]

This recount strategy would weaken a typical Republican president. I don’t think it will affect Trump at all. It’s the difference between process oriented politics vs. results oriented goals. I’m loving watching the feckless media cry over their lost ability to influence the agenda. I’m loving the death of political correctness.

[gogeo]

Larry, you may be approaching the question from the wrong direction. As you recall Torch was replaced by the cadaver, and there was no basis in law for the decision.

The key here, IMO, is the 4-4 Supreme Court.

[GOPJ]

On a totally different subject:

Grampa Dave came up with this gem:

“CNN receives programming reimbursement from the U.S. State Department via The Bureau of International Information Programs; the same State Department program that pays Facebook for content. CNN is not as reliant on ad revenue because they get tens of millions from the U.S. State Department.”

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/09/21/cable-news-corps-reacting-to-scant-campaign-spending-frustrated-media-attempt-to-create-news/