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.
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.
If the votes can’t be counted by 12/13 then whoever was originally called the winner should maintain that position or NO “EC” votes are counted on 12/19 for that state at all. Just my take on it.
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.
If no candidate reaches 270 I believe the House elects the President; this doesn’t work for Dems/libs either. This was the same scenario Gore faced in 2000; if FL wasn’t certified he still would have lost.
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.
I read the same thing yesterday in this article:
Excerpt with pertinent into:
Wisconsin’s last statewide recount was in 2011 for a state Supreme Court seat and the outcome did not change. The recount showed Justice David Prosser defeated challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg by 7,004 votes — a slightly tighter margin than the 7,316-vote victory he had in initial returns.
That recount took more than a month. This one would have to happen more quickly because of a federal law that says states must complete presidential recounts within 35 days of the election to ensure their electoral votes are counted. This year, that’s Dec. 13.
“You may potentially have the state electoral votes at stake if it doesn’t get done by then,” said Haas.
A lawyer with Stein’s campaign has said it wants the recount done by hand. That would take longer and require a judge’s order, Haas said.
Perhaps the most important deadline is Dec. 19, when electors around the country must meet to cast their Electoral College votes, said Edward Foley, an expert in election law at Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University.
“That is a hard deadline and if a state were to miss that deadline, it would be technically in jeopardy of not having its electoral votes counted,” he said.
Same problem occurred in Florida....the Florida Court had no Authority because it was a Federal Election.
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.