Posted on 12/18/2016 2:57:44 PM PST by crz
Here is the 12th amendment which concerns the election of the POTUS. Read it!
You are right, the election of 1796 did result in Adams/Jefferson. But even though Adams and Jefferson were political enemies (they later reconciled and oddly died on the same day in 1826-50 years after the Declaration of Independence) the 12th amendment was proposed after the disaster of 1800. Adams and Jefferson probably spoke little but I don’t think that anyone thought that Jefferson would try to do Adams in. But Burr showed the fatal flaw in the original plan. Washington thought we’d all be Americans (what a quaint thought—remember right after 9/11 when we kind of thought that again?) but the dark side of human nature reared its head. Since the Electoral College was designed with Washington’s ideals in mind, it didn’t take into account the passions of political parties.
One other point that some might be missing. The votes from the Electoral College goes to Congress for verification. One Representative and One Senator from a state may protest the vote(s) from that state. If protested, it must be resolved by Congress before the votes can be tallied and finalized. So even if say 3 won state’s electors change their pledged votes and vote against Trump, they can be protested which I would think can be reversed to be for Trump.
I expect a lot if not all of Trump’s states to be objected to by the Dems just to be a PIA so they can say he was selected by be Republican congress.
When that fails, they will file impeachment charges prior to the inauguration, and probably some other actions not yet thought of to delay swearing in.
> The 12 amendment says that the winner must have a majority of all votes in the electoral college
The key here is all “appointed” rather than “potential” votes. Thus, if some state, through internal chaos, failed to appoint its electors, the majority required would fall below 270. Of course, that doesn’t mean Hillary’s lawyers would accept that fact, but it seems nonetheless straightforwardly presented in the amendment text.
Why dont you go FY. How many GD people ran for POTUS you dumb effer.
How many ran for POTUS? Two?
Does anyone think that the electors will throw out the vote from their respective states in favor of another nominee?
That is correct, Those votes dont automatically go to the other nominee.
Now in some states I understand it is a felony to not vote for the winner of that state.
“So now the electors vote separately for President and Vice President. Under the old system Hillary! would be Vice President-Elect and wouldn’t that make for an interesting four years.”
She would be kept “on ice” in some underground bunker in Alaska as the full-time “designated survivor”
So, I guess you're not very good at English either.
In the future, you should probably look up some word definitions and do some arithmetic before exposing your own ignorance, especially if you enjoy calling other people "dumb f---er".
Oops...
“...ordered us...”
...and, of course,
“...peremptorily...”
Long story short, since the 1964 presidential election, D.C. has had three electors.
FINAL correction. Please forgive the tone of my other response to this post. While factually correct, my insulting attitude was not appropriate.
Furthermore, I should not have given a snarky response in my FIRST posting on this subject. I should have taken your question seriously and offered an informative reply without resorting to insult. I apologize and hope you will forgive me.
It would be the incoming Congress, not the outgoing Congress.
OK
Now, per the 12th. lets take a look at history. There were 4? in the 1825 election? And it went to the house.
Not saying that the others could throw their support behing Klintoon and effect the outcome, but one DID throw her support behind Klintoon and failed...whether she admits it or not.
https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/exhibitions/timeline/house-elects-president-1825
Well, not to get all Clintonian on you, but it depends on the meaning of “appointed”.
If 538 electors are “appointed”, you need 270 to win. If only 300 electors are “appointed”, you only need 151. Both of those things are very clear from reading Amendment XII.
But what if there are contested slates when Congress enters special joint session to count the votes? For example, let’s say Florida had sent two slates of electors to President of the Senate Gore in 2001, one from the Legislature, one from the Secretary of State under orders from SCoFLA.
How many “appointed” electors would there have been? 513, 538, or 563?
Okay. But the reason the election went to the House in 1825 was because no one received the commensurate number of electoral votes which represented a majority at that time.
This year, from an electoral college standpoint, there are only two candidates - Trump and Clinton. No one else secured any electoral votes.
Barring an outright revolution by most of the electors, one of the two people will win the election today - and he/she will win it as soon as he/she receives his/her 270th electoral vote.
Based on the results of the voting back in November, and the current state-by state rules regarding electors, that person should be Donald Trump. And, given his lead in numbers of pledged electors, it should occur without a lot of drama - apart from that which will be manufactured by the democrats and the media after the electoral vote is certified.
Take a look at what happend in the 1825 election.
I believe Stien took a ignorant attempt at overturning the election by the recount efforts. Problem was, is that she thought she could overturn it by the recount of couple of states. Didnt work, and she spent a ton of money and made a ton of money.
She forgot that she couldnt “SELL” her votes to Klintoon, in Wiscinsin for example, after the election which I believe she was actually up to. Then, the dumb bitch managed to expose the corruption of the election process in Detroit.
After today, its all in history books and we can look at how ignorant these people are.
Thats true. But, where/who do those votes go if they are left out if a state is tied up? Like WI and MI and PA?
I have to believe that is what they were up to.
In short, I think she thought she could “sell” her popular votes in those states to Klintoon. How much money did they pump into her recount efforts? Then, if she could get the popular vote to Klintoon and put her over the top, she thought that those electoral votes would go to Klintoon.
Wild imagination, but the question is..why in the hell would she want to recount in states that Trump won by that margin? Why not FL?
These people are twisted in their logic.
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.