You need some backup for making a claim like this. If you right then Trump should demand a California and New York recount.
“If a state does not certify to Congress by that date the votes do not count and Hillary wins.”
Huh?
That right there is the endgame. Drag out the “recounts” in MI, PA and WI so they cannot send their results and the electors cannot vote.
Well the courts would step in you say. Sure.
I’d like to see the source material for this claim. I would find it hard to believe that they would leave the door open on such an easy technique to throw the vote and let another candidate win by simply slowing the vote counting process.
You could not be more misinformed.
Even if the recounts are not done and the 3 States EV are not included in the totals, Trump still has more EV than Clinton. Even though his total drops below 270 he will be the president because the decision will be made by the US House of Rep. based on who has more votes
This was well explained in an earlier post on another thread.
Not really. If that is the case.. Trump still wins in the EC with 260 votes to her 232 as 246 is new threshold majority. It does however reduce the number of needed “faithless electors” to switch to Hillary to 15.
My understanding is that if a recount is not completed in time, then the previous count stands. To have it otherwise would allow legitimate votes to be disqualified by shenanigans like we are seeing now.
That isn’t how it works.
For God’s sakes, how many times do I have to say this?
You are wrong, OP.
The constitution says nothing anywhere about 270 EVs. It only says the winner is whoever has the majority of votes from the appointed electors.
Normally there are 538 electors, with 270 being a majority. If Stein prevents MI, PA, and WI from participating in the EC and they can’t appoint electors, then the number of electors drops from 538 to 492. A majority in this scenario is 247. Trump would have 260 and still win the EC.
IF STEIN DISENFRANCHISES THESE THREE STATES TRUMP WINS. Period.
We need to stop spreading this crap about going to the house if the recount states can’t appoint electors. That’s not how it works.
If the recounts are not complete by the date the electors must vote, then the states have the right to accept the first count and the recount is then null and void.
or, if the states do not pull this trigger, then it goes to Congress to vote on it. Would the establishment Republicans stab us in the back by voting for her? If they did then the Republic is truly dead and the resulting revolution will be begun. I really don’t think they like lampposts that much. Nevermind the tar and feathers treatment beforehand.
There are plenty of threads which describe what would happen in this case. No, Hillary does not “win” in any of them.
She wins with Trump getting 260 and she gets 232? Math fail.
I would really like to understand the law in this matter, all I have read is conflicting speculation.
The SoS have certified the results. Does a recount “erase” that certification? Otherwise, if a recount is not finished in time, wouldn’t the original certified results be submitted?
Really wish we had some definitive statements from each of the 3 states about what happens, what the law is for each state.
Your posting here is also quite spotty and erratic. Only a handful of unsubstantive posts over the past few years. What prompted you to post this nonsense vanity on a Sunday morning?
The state legislature can appoint electors if necessary. The Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania legislatures are all run by the GOP.
Same problem occurred in Florida....the Florida Court had no Authority because it was a Federal Election.
You may be right. I wouldn’t put it past her. But there’s no way out except through, with constant vigilance.
Hillary cannot win without 270 EC votes. If she slows the certification beyond the deadline, the EC is taken out of the decision and the House of Representatives get the vote.
That might be the theory. But it won’t happen.