YES, Why ?
Posted on 11/27/2016 5:46:51 AM PST by learner
Jill does not want a recount, she wants to nullify the votes. She can do this with a slow recount that goes beyond the certification date 12/13. If a state does not certify to Congress by that date the votes do not count and Hillary wins. She can slow the count by challenges which will get them beyond the certify date. Remember Michigan just reported their final vote a week ago, almost three weeks after the election.
If the three states in question can’t get their recounts done in time and they fail to appoint electors to the EC, this reduces the number of electors appointed. This also reducing the number of EVs needed for a majority.
In reality, these states electors will probably be appointed even if the recounts don’t get done in time. In most states there are provisions for the state legislature to appoint the electors. Also note that all 3 state legislatures are controlled by republicans. The majorities are pretty commanding in WI and PA. Thinner majority in MI but still enough.
If they claim to find evidence of hacking could they say that none of the vote count in any of the statescan be trusted?
The original Vote Counts are already Certified.
There would be no Recertification until the Recount is completed.
If the recount is not completed in time, the original Certification stands.
The end. Hello President Trump.
You are correct....
The original certified count stands...
I believe the law differs in each state. In Florida, the law stated elections must be certified within xx days of the election. They were not finished and kept ‘trolling’ for more votes for Gore.
The SOS was under enormous pressure not to certify by the entire nation of libs, including death threats. Kathryn Harris (Bush (R)) certified the results.
All hell broke lose. Gore sued. It went to the FL Supremes (all D, but 1 Indie)
They over ruled FL law and directed the trolling for votes to continue. Back and forth and eventually the USSC decided.
So yes, there are state election laws for republicans and judges for dems to negate the election laws.
The Florida count was certified on time by the SoS- Kathryne Harris.
Gore sued for more time. FL Supremes ignored FL & federal law and gave Gore more time to keep trolling for votes.
They were wrong. The process could have went on for months. They concocted reasons to cherry-pick the dem-rich counties.
Katherine Harris was mocked, threatened and ridiculed. A few years later, Bush brothers tossed her to the curb.
Well then DJT will need to run ads paid for by a PAC. The ads will state the actual numbers of 306 Electoral votes won by Trump with the county map and so forth.
Force the truth to be heard, they are not understanding it otherwise.
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President<<<
If no person gets a majority, then wouldn’t that indicate a tie?
If you eliminate the electoral votes from those three states, Trump’s 306 is reduced to 260. However, eliminating those votes from Trump is only half the equation. They’d also have to be eliminated from Clinton turning her 232 into a much greater loss. She’d only have 186.
Trump would still have a majority. Therefore, I too was wrong in thinking that Stein was seeking to disenfranchise the voters of those three states. The numbers simply don’t work out.
Even if electors from other states turned some of their votes, it would take a concentrated, united effort among all electors to achieve the right number of turncoats.
The Constitution should have been followed in 2000, the USSC should have refused to hear the Bush v. Gore case.
Had the Constitution been followed, there was no way for Gore to become President (although there was a scenario whereby Lieberman could have become VP).
This post has all the earmarks of cointelpro.
See post #105.
And on a closely related note, how do you think the Trump voters in these three states will feel, now and for years to come, about being disenfranchised during this pivotal and emotional election? Even though the outcome remains the same, Trump wins. Game changer in a major way, for states that usually do not vote R.... just my two cents...
MOgirl
In Wisconsin if the vote is not certified by 12/13/16 then the state legislature will assign/appoint the electors. Not certain which house. Since both are pubbie it should be OK. This information comes from posts on FR. I don’t know about the other states involved. Another post indicates that in Wisconsin the requesting party must present prima facicia evidence of voter fraud in a court in order to get a recount.
YES, Why ?
Keep posting FReeper! This is the first time I have seen it. I am certain I am not alone. It clarifies much of what I have seen posted.
Keep posting FReeper! This is the first time I have seen it. I am certain I am not alone. It clarifies much of what I have seen posted. For all, please refer to the Constitution, Article II, third paragraph, and read through it. It fully supports JamesP81’s post.
make a note that Ruth Johnson is a REPUBLIcan
Michigan Secretary of State
Well if they don’t kill the King there will be hell to pay!
A twofer...
I was thinking the same thing last night..even posted it but I was wrong. Trump doesn’t loose enough electoral votes between those three states to loose a majority.
Earlier today I was thinking she’d loose electoral votes too, but she wouldn’t because she never gained them in the first place.
At this point, I think when push comes to shove, she’ll actually loose popular votes thereby having even less to brag about.
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.