Posted on 12/02/2016 12:51:41 PM PST by Secret Agent Man
All states need to examine and modify their election laws to make sure that:
1. They do not,permit candidates to collude and conspire and/or receive money from other election candidates to file recount petitions. Ie acting as a proxy for,other candidates who may or may not remain silent,about their involvement or desire for a recount.
2. Set vote percentage limits on recount requests, that without concrete proof of systematic fraud, and that their vote,count is so small there is no chance of them winning they are denied a recount.
3. Set percentage vote limits thst if they are under a certain percentage of the total vote, they have to pay all costs of the recount and the state can determine what level of recount to do, ie machine or hand or a mix of the two,,depending on the states decision.
4. That all costs are paid up front and if the state costs are underestimated the candidate must pay the remainder as soon as it is known and a bill for,payment is issued.
5. Foreigners cannot give money to recount elections and if found that any money for a candidares recount is given by foreigners or foreign groups and the candidates campaign knows the money is from foreign donors (ie openly takes a donation, works to get a foreign donation, tries to cover,up a foreign donation source, etc) the recall petition is invalidated and the candidate cannot submit another recount petition. And the candidate forfeits their recount money paid to the state.
6. Candidates attempting to use the recount process as a way to delay the election process and disrupt the eldction process will have petitions denied and be fined for frivolous lawsuits and attempting to disrupt/delay a valid election. Such candidates would be candidates that have no hard evidence of fraud, who merely make verbal allegations with nothing substantial to back up their allegations (ie poll and vote result differences are not substantial allegations) and who have no statistical chance of winning the election given how few votes they have received.
7. Establish limits as to how much donors can contribute to candidate recounts, if already not limited. But especially to groups that bundle donations. Also establish that the people of the state actually want the recount and are putting their money behind it, by requiring a minimum of 80% of all recount money for a candidate seeking a recount, come from in-state citizens. This is to reduce the influence of non-state outsiders disrupting a states elections process.
“Ever state”? Is you all frum the South?
Alert the mods. They’ll fix that headline right up.
you wish not to see hillary lose twice?
It’s also helpful for everyone to understand the difference between a “recount” and a “canvassing” process. The canvassing process involves an examination of ballots that had been cast provisionally or were disqualified initially for some reason or another. These usually involve people casting votes in the wrong precinct, or something like that. They were legitimately cast, but were not counted in the initial results. When you see a big jump in the vote totals for a candidate or multiple candidates several days or weeks after Election Day, it’s usually because a whole bunch of these provisional ballots were later approved and added to the original totals. None of this has anything to do with an actual “recount.”
Wisconsin got this almost right after their 2011 recount for state supreme court which required a complete re-write of the process. The one thing they missed is your #2, and I heard today it will be considered, that is, only the #2 candidate may request a recount or some very stringent criteria that would preclude a recount unless the vote totals are so close there is a reasonable chance that the result could be reversed.
I wish not to have every single liberal party from this day forward adopt this as a standard practice for every election they don’t win.
I know you why you said this though :)
Yeah we almost got it totally right.
Too many on our side do not get how liberals think though.
Unfortunately this may go against efforts by advocates of better election auditing and quality control. But that is what happens when people like the Clintons and Jill Stein try to undermine the will of the people.
It may do the opposite as folks move to ensure such issues dont ever come about requiring them to use the modified recount laws.
Good point!
My suggestion is to put adults in charge, then all of this childish silliness will not be entertained whatsoever.
i think if were able to stop the millions of illegals voting and illegal votes it would be a non issue but i also like your idea. very good idea.
Adults can be dishonest.
Adult and honest are not necessarily synonyms today.
Well in places where they let noncitizens vote, it wouldnt. Like California.
True, dishonest is par for the course these days. I should have been more specific.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” - John Adams
Candidate requested recounts should NEVER be allowed or the left will abuse the process from now on. only a close election should trigger a recount or actual proof of fraud that calls the election into question and enacted by the state parties.
And they cannot wait three weeks to file. Give them 3 days just like we get for contracts.
Include measures that will “true the vote” and I’m right behind you.
Voter ID, void all existing voter rolls and require in-person re-registration, eliminate Motor Voter and same-day registration, and think hard about repealing early voting.
With Trump as a strong leader and with Republicans controlling 45 of the 50 legislatures ... this should be on his priority list. This is absolute nonsense.
I think John Drake would approve.
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.