Posted on 11/27/2016 8:55:59 AM PST by Magnatron
You are correct, and the Republican party and Trump need desperately to legislate this into oblivion. If they don’t, then we are finished in the near future, as we can not challenge or stop massive anti-American/DNC/socialist voter fraud.
I believe the state Congressional delegations are controlled by Republicans in 32 states. Seven of those state GOP delegations would have to support Hillary over Trump to deny Trump the presidency. Which seven GOP states would do that?
If something so dramatic is undertaken, it is far more likely the House and Senate would stonewall and allow Paul Ryan to become Acting President.
For the record you will find no stronger supporter of the genius that is our electoral college than myself.
I merely would like to see any investigation into who votes in CA, as I believe voter feaud here is the worst in the country. A good, well researched, look into the number of illegals voting in CA alone would open many eyes. And the more citizen eyes that are opened (especially CA ones) the better it will be. IMHO
And New York and New Jersey and Illinois and Minnesota.
Great idea.
The final result, if the count isn’t finished by the constitutional clock time of Dec 13th, will be Trump wins. As happened when the high court stopped the counting in 2000
The court did not toss the states electors out and force the vote to the House to pick a winner. Nor did the court force one candidate to win the simple 50% majority of what electors were left to become the president.
The Court ended the count and gave the state to GW, and thus the Presidency was determined by the constitutional clock. Which in 2000 was Dec 12, and this time Dec 13th.
Now, the reason for this recount for Stein and Clinton, is to try and drag this on in the hopes of forcing the courts to again stop the votes in Wisc, Mich, and Penn and thus allow Trump to win as he has.
However the left will then claim he won because the Courts again stole it as they claim happened in 2000.
Poor education will then help them convince the majority that it was the courts, not the majority vote, not the electoral college, and not the constitutional clock that made Trump the president.
It is all that remains for them to keep their base angry and thus try and use it to win seats in 2018 election and for them hopefully to win in 2020.
It will be GWs presidency all over again. It won’t work because trump id nit GW, but it is all they have.
Voters determine how many/which precincts to recount
Voters may request recounts for offices
Voters may request recounts for initiatives/questions
Any voter in California can request that a county elections official conduct a recount. Details on voter- initiated recounts can be found in Division 15, Chapter 9, Article 3, "Voter-Requested Recounts": http://law.justia.com/california/codes/elec/15620-15634.html. The law states that such requests may be filed for “candidates for any office, for slates of presidential electors, or for or against any measure, provided the office, slate, or measure is not voted on statewide. The request shall specify on behalf of which candidate, slate of electors, or position on a measure (affirmative or negative) it is filed.” The request must also specify in which counties the recount is to take place: for elections that occur in more than one county, the recount may be requested for "any or all of the affected counties." See Section 15620: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/ELEC/1/d15/9/3/s15620.
The initiator may also indicate the order in which the precincts are to be recounted. See Section 15622: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/ELEC/1/d15/9/3/s15622. If not all precincts were initially included in the request for a recount, any voter may file a request to recount any of the remaining precincts, up to 24 hours after the initial recount. See Section 15623: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/ELEC/1/d15/9/3/s15623. Statewide offices may also be recounted, but the request is filed with the Secretary of State. See Section 15621: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/ELEC/1/d15/9/3/s15621.
Timing: The request must be filed within five days of the official canvass. The recount must begin within seven days of the request, and is required to continue each day, excepting holidays, for a minimum of six hours each day, until its completion. See Section 15626: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/ELEC/1/d15/9/3/s15626.
Initiator pays deposit before recount
Payer of costs depends on outcome of recount
The voter must pay for all associated recount costs, to be established by the Secretary of State and appropriate elections officials. The voter will pay a deposit at the beginning of each day of the recount for that day's estimated costs. All deposits are refunded if the recount declares that the initiator's candidate, or stated position on a ballot measure, is the actual winner in the election. See Section 15624: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/ELEC/1/d15/9/3/s15624.
Statutes specify that recount must be public
Party/candidate or initiator has statutory authority to appoint observers
Party/candidate or initiator has statutory authority to appoint challengers
California statute requires that the recount must be held publicly and that notice of the recount be posted at least one day prior to the recount; see Sections 15628 and 15629. State regulations also allow for “any person” to observe the recount, “subject to space limitations.” See the California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Chapter 8.1, Article 1, Section 20820, “Spokespersons and Observers”: http://tinyurl.com/9c6mvhk. The Code of Regulations states that a voter requesting the recount has a right to observers. Election officials choosing the recount location must make sure the space allows for the presence of “not more than two representatives” from each of “interested parties,” qualified political parties, and “any bona fide association of citizens or a media organization.” Code of Regulations, Section 20816, "Location of Recount" - http://tinyurl.com/9c6mvhk. Section 20811, “Definitions,” Subsection (c) also defines “interested parties” to include the voter who has requested a recount.
The law is somewhat less clear regarding challengers and official observers. While it does not state that challengers representing the recount initiator have a right to be present at the recount, it does mention the ability for ballots to be challenged, and does not stipulate requirements or restrictions on who may bring such challenges. See Section 15631, which describes the process for challenging ballots: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/ELEC/1/d15/9/3/s15631. Additionally, Section 15630 specifies that the voter initiating the recount is allowed to request examination of all ballots: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/ELEC/1/d15/9/3/s15630.
If Trump did this and announced that the reason why was to build a list of deportable criminals, he would supress the illegal vote for years.
I thought that as well, but it’s wrong.
It’s a majority of electors appointed, not a majority of all possible electors.
No, I am correct. The confusion arises because of the understanding of "majority of electoral votes".
Here is the applicable paragraph in the 12th Amendment to the constitution: "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, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President."
Note the phrase "the whole number of Electors appointed". It doesn't say "the whole number of electors VOTING". That is a key distinction and it basically why I'm correct with my 270 vote requirement. The whole number of electors appointed is equal to the 2 from each state and 1 each for each seat in the House of Representatives. As Nate Silver would quickly point out that total is 538 so 270 to 268 wins the Presidency.
Further ...
U.S. Code 3 U.S.C. § 3) is quite explicit in defining the meaning of the number of electors. Here it is:
§ 3. The number of electors shall be equal to the number of Senators and Representatives to which the several States are by law entitled at the time when the President and Vice President to be chosen come into office; except, that where no apportionment of Representatives has been made after any enumeration, at the time of choosing electors, the number of electors shall be according to the then existing apportionment of Senators and Representatives.
That’s what I think. Since the federal elections affect all the other states and their citizens, each state’s federal election procedures is their business.
You dont get the why.
If they cant get the recount done by a certain date, the candidate wont get those votes. So Hillary loses 55 ca ec votes. Wont matter what happens to wi, mi, and pa then.
I don’t even think CA is done counting yet...
“If they cant get the recount done by a certain date, the candidate wont get those votes. So Hillary loses 55 ca ec votes. Wont matter what happens to wi, mi, and pa then.”
It’s a two-fer. By the time they toss out all the bogus vote from Illegals and fraud, her ‘popular vote’ win will be disappear.
Some states make a complete mockery of our election process.
We need a federal law for election reform. All states must require Voter ID. All states must purge their voter list every 10 years and have the living re-register if they want to vote. Do away with same day register/voting and do away with motor voter.
I would also do away with early voting and make election day a federal holiday.
Strategy of this type would be YUGE and magnificent~
Good thinking on your part.
Also "preventing potential voters from registering to vote or casting a ballot" has nothing to do with identifying and removing illegal voters, who are not by any definition "potential voters.".
I think getting around that crooked consent decree would take no more than following the old maxim that Trump proved again this election season: "One man with courage is a majority."
They wouldn’t dare.
I differ from you in the lauding of the electoral college. It is still set up to treat a presidential election like a coronation. If you win certain states, you win the election. So a select few determine the outcome of the popular vote. That is not the intent of the founders nor the desire of, I hope, anyone to have our leaders selected by our leaders, and not by us, the voters.
But using just the popular vote, with its history of fraud, is an open invitation to do the same. A recount will not determine the depth of the illegal operations in any state.
They found all kinds of illegal operations in the Bush/Gore vote in Florida. But the actions that could have changed the vote were never surfaced or never happened, who knows?
But to fix it requires so much extra work, extra funds, extra headaches, it will never be changed. A recount is not going to find all the voter fraud, only a congressional investigation. And when they say they are coming in, there will be a battle about states rights versus federal requirements that will never be completed due to the graft they all have with this. And they will all go into this walking on eggshells and not pouncing like a tiger. They’re all filthy and they don’t want their little secrets on Utube.
So, in the meantime, just be prepared to be fooled from the polls. The people that are making the rules, manipulate them. And then if they don’t accomplish the goal of making your selections for you, they change them.
red
Filing deadlines:
For voter-requested recounts, within five days of the official canvass.
So I think the deadline has passed.
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.