that is from 'The Bay State Banner' on October 4, 2001. Author is Cynthia Suarez. Read Stein's words.
Posted on 11/27/2016 6:28:38 PM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
Edited on 11/27/2016 7:29:34 PM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]
Wisconsin election officials are expected to meet Monday to discuss a possible timeline for a recount of the state's presidential election.
The recount comes at the request of Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who says it's important to determine whether hacking may have affected the results. Stein says she also plans to request recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
good point. need to know and be able to check for what is being looked for in this “recount”.
That’s similar to what I posted elsewhere earlier. That for a recount, they should know what total number of voters actually voted and be sure they have only that number of ballots. Then recount to be sure the ballots were awarded to proper candidate. if they find more ballots then number of voters then it’s no guarantee the “recount” total is accurate total.
I Wonder if they do any looking at voter rolls etc to recalculate if the total of ballots equals what they have as people who voted?
This is an area of law few are familiar with. My general understanding is that if the recount isn't complete by the deadline, either the state legislature can get involved in some way, or the State's electoral votes will not be forwarded to Congress.
Presently, the Electoral College consists of 538 presidential electors from the fifty states and Washington, D.C. An absolute majority is 270 votes.
As I poorly understand it, if Wisconsin's 10 EVs are not forwarded to Congress, there would only be 528 presidential electors and a correspondingly lower absolute majority. Obviously,if only Wisconsin's EV's aren't counted, Trump still wins. However, if Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania are not counted, then my understanding is that the House of Representatives will have to select the President and the Senate will select the Vice President.
Under this scenario,the objective appears to be have Congress select the president in order to de-legitimize Trump by claiming he wasn't elected but rather selected by his own party. Another outcome would be if several of the Not-For-Trump Congressmen voted Hillary and handed her the presidency.
that is from 'The Bay State Banner' on October 4, 2001. Author is Cynthia Suarez. Read Stein's words.
This point has been beaten to death, and perhaps people will have to agree to disagree, but a lot of people see it this way:
The current number 270 is not codified in law. If we add more states (Puerto Rico), the number will go higher. If California secedes, the number would go lower. So, the “270” isn’t magic. Whether we are looking into the future or looking at 2016, there no absolute requirement that there be 270 electors.
The law says the “majority” of votes cast by certified electors will determine the winner. I have no idea if MI, PA, or WI will have any electors certified in time for the December vote. But however many certified voters there are (and it could be less than 270) those people will vote and their majority will decide things.
This is pretty much a non-issue.
people keep trying to make USA a plain and simple democracy and we are not, never have been and if we become one we will not really be the USofA.
Yes it is. 270 is the smallest number that represents a majority of the electors. The number of electors is specified in the 14th Amendment to be equal to the number of Senators plus the number of members in the House of Representatives. Right not that number is 538 and a majority is 270.
You said: The law says the “majority” of votes cast by certified electors will determine the winner.
Nope. It is not the certified number of electors it is the "appointed" number. And right now the number of electors "appointed" is 538. If we add a new state that number would go up by at least 3. But right now it is 538. And it takes 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency outright. Any failure for that to happen and the House of Representatives gets to decide.
Unless Hillary can flip WI, MI and PA or convince an equivalent pile of Trump electors to vote for her she cannot become President. Even if no elector votes for Trump.
If a new state were added, the number of EC votes would go up by 2 not 3, unless Congress changes the formula as it did temporarily following the admittance of Alaska and Hawaii into the Union.
Yes .... good point .... I believe that was also covered in my recount of the 1876 election.
Two Senators plus one Congressman. That’s 3. What am I doing wrong?
As per my entire post .... Everything in my statements was summed up in the very LAST statement of my post.
I cannot claim to be an expert, so I will stop with this post, and you can have the last word if you wish. But I say this in parting:
The Constitution talks about appointing electors according to a formula, and you are correct, the number of appointed electors must currently be 538.
The Constitution also says (rather loosely, I think) that the electors will meet and vote. It doesn’t say that ALL of them must participate. Someone might have died; someone might stay home; someone might abstain. The appointing and the voting are separate and distinct. The appointing will result in 538. The number who vote is not explicitly stated.
I think MI, PA and WI might be disenfranchised if Stein and Hillary move to cloud those electors. If the state recount does not finish, I don’t see how the electors from those states can be allowed to vote. Which means (to me) that fewer than 538 electors might vote this year.
And now I’ll step back and say no more.
Yup ... I believe this whole thing Is about damaging the winner .... not taking the Presidency from Him/Her. Liberals react to life’s moments in a much different way than a Conservative. Their entire belief system is founded on punishing success and awarding non achievers by redistribution of the booty of the achiever.
The country is no longer ruled by law so I fully expect the recount to go on notwithstanding the law doesn’t really slow for it. Pretty sad that one side direct trust the initial count and the other side direct trust Recount. Can a country like this long endure?
I woke up this morning as worried as you probably are that Hillary could steal this one from us. So I did the research. I'm not worried anymore. I sleep well.
Take a look HERE and you will find quite a nice discussion of the issue. Take particular notice to the wording and discussion of the 14th Amendment and United States Code (3 U.S.C. § 3). That did it for me. I suspect it will for you as well.
Stay cool. And keep posting.
They are trying to delegitimatize the entire election in order to create chaos and disruption. If they somehow flip even one state for Hillary, they would go on and on about how everything was hacked
No payment has been made for the recount and according to WI law the deadline past for making the payment. No recount will happen.
They will give her an estimate of the costs then she has to cut a check.
Yes, it’s true she is a front surrogate for Clinton because of evidence she won’t answer to.
The evidence is that she chose only 3 states that Clinton lost and none where Clinton won.
In other words, if she was truly an independent agent for election integrity, she would have also chosen states that Trump lost by much smaller margins.
So her biased choices in this matter reveal what’s up. She’s a snake.
WI legislature can safe harbor the elector
I want to believe you, but do you have a source for that?
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.