Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Something every state needs to consider right now

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.


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: elections; recount
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-23 last
To: DNME

Thats fine andmi am for them too,,thismis just dealing with recount laws to prevent the abuse of recounts to disrupt and denyna legitimate election.


21 posted on 12/02/2016 4:27:56 PM PST by Secret Agent Man ( Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
I like your thinking. I also recommend that states disadvantage or outright ban from the ballot any candidate who does not offer solid evidence that they do not have an undisclosed neurological disorder.

We do not know that Hillary has Parkinson’s disease, but if she does it will get pretty hard to conceal in a couple of years, I would think. And as we have seen, at least one national party will nominate a candidate who has no compunction at all about lying.


22 posted on 12/02/2016 5:50:50 PM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion ('Liberalism' is a conspiracy against the public by wire-service journalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
Another issue is the “faithless elector.” Whatever may be said about the fact that the Constitutional scheme clearly contemplates Electors being appointed by the states to wisely choose the POTUS - and plenty can indeed be said - what are we to think of a nineteen year old Elector announcing the intention to be “faithless?” If the POTUS is required to be at least 35 years old, what justification can there be to appoint an Elector under the age of twenty???
The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)

23 posted on 12/02/2016 6:03:20 PM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion ('Liberalism' is a conspiracy against the public by wire-service journalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-23 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson