Clinton Urged to Call For Recount After Suspected Vote Tampering And/Or Hacking

[Beazy]

That's, like, not true at all.

Those 51 popular "elections" aren't elections at all. They do nothing but provide the Electoral College with information about their State's leanings. And it isn't about the "number of States" that you win, it's the number of Electoral College votes you get; you need 270 to win.

And that election has not happened yet.

I think Michigan finished counting today, and Trump still won. No telling when/how the recount will happen, but its pretty official now.

[Vyxn]

So basically you want a census every year? Do you realize that would be fucking expensive? Also it takes a long time to compile a census.



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/us...-indicted.html

the state sure in the hell knows when you die when it comes to benefits so if the state is capable of removing your name when you die so you don't receive anymore checks they sure in the hell can remove you from the voting list

- - - Updated - - -

I mean, I asked that question specifically because I don't believe the government should get to collect that information from us just because we want to exercise our rights.

so your against a gun registry

[Daerio]

I think Michigan finished counting today, and Trump still won. No telling when/how the recount will happen, but its pretty official now.

Well that doesn't stop the EC reps from switching their vote to Clinton out of the blue. President of the gaps.

[Vyxn]

That's, like, not true at all.

Those 51 popular "elections" aren't elections at all. They do nothing but provide the Electoral College with information about their State's leanings. And it isn't about the "number of States" that you win, it's the number of Electoral College votes you get; you need 270 to win.

And that election has not happened yet.

and 30 states have a law requiring the EC members of that state vote according to that states popular vote

Alabama (Code of Ala. §17-19-2)
Alaska (Alaska Stat. §15.30.090)
California (Election Code §6906)
Colorado (CRS §1-4-304)
Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. §9-176)
Delaware (15 Del C §4303)
District of Columbia (§1-1312(g))
Florida (Fla. Stat. §103.021(1))
Hawaii (HRS §14-28)
Maine (21-A MRS §805)
Maryland (Md Ann Code art 33, §8-505)
Massachusetts (MGL, ch. 53, §8)
Michigan (MCL §168.47)
Mississippi (Miss Code Ann §23-15-785)
Montana (MCA §13-25-104)
Nebraska (§32-714)
Nevada (NRS §298.050)
New Mexico (NM Stat Ann §1-15-9)
North Carolina (NC Gen Stat §163-212)
Ohio (ORC Ann §3505.40)
Oklahoma (26 Okl St §10-102)
Oregon (ORS §248.355)
South Carolina (SC Code Ann §7-19-80)
Tennessee (Tenn Code Ann §2-15-104(c))
Utah (Utah Code Ann §20A-13-304)
Vermont (17 VSA §2732)
Virginia (§24.2-203)
Washington (RCW §29.71.020)
Wisconsin (Wis Stat §7.75)
Wyoming (Wyo Stat §22-19-108)

[PACOX]

Is this man another whiny liberal?

Republican of member of Electoral College resigns due to Trump's presidency

[Vyxn]

A gun registry is a pretty different issue.

your right the right to own a gun is a right specifically granted under our constitution
voting isn't

[Daerio]

Is this man another whiny liberal?

Republican of member of Electoral College resigns due to Trump's presidency

You mean he resigned when he could have voted for Clinton instead?

[Vyxn]

Well that doesn't stop the EC reps from switching their vote to Clinton out of the blue. President of the gaps.

not if they are in one of the thirty states that require the EC member by law to vote for the candidate selected by the states popular vote

[Daerio]

not if they are in one of the thirty states that require the EC member by law to vote for the candidate selected by the states popular vote

I was kidding, that's not a reasonable expectation yet it still seems to be what Endus and some other lefties are still counting on.

I'm sure President of the Gaps was too obscure for anyone to get.

[Vyxn]

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution
The Right To Vote
The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.
Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#vote

[cubby]

You mean he resigned when he could have voted for Clinton instead?

You know, that's very interesting. He must have been from a state that requires their EC Reps to vote the way the state did.

[Xandrigity]

It's not looking good for a pa recount. What ever will Jill Stein do with all that extra money. The deadline was nov 21st.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pe...rticle/2608305

[Daerio]

But in all but two (IIRC) of those states, the law doesn't bind their vote. It's merely a fine levied on them if they don't follow that popular vote, their dissenting vote still counts as cast.

(It's also strange that states pass those laws at all, seeing as how the function of the EC was not to just blindly follow the popular vote to begin with, but eh. Times change.)

Punishment fits the crime. The day the EC overrules their constituency an overturns and election is the day the punishment goes from being a fine to... well, it's going to get worse.

[GennGreymane]

It's not looking good for a pa recount. What ever will Jill Stein do with all that extra money. The deadline was nov 21st.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pe...rticle/2608305

actually do a real campaign in 4 years? Hookers and blow?

Either way, Trump is saying he supports its. he claimed millions voted illegally.

[Xandrigity]

actually do a real campaign in 4 years? Hookers and blow?

Either way, Trump is saying he supports its. he claimed millions voted illegally.

Yea hookers and blow. I had been miss informed I thought today was pa deadline but it was actually last Monday. Jill Stein has been blowing smoke up ppls ass.

[GennGreymane]

Yea hookers and blow. I had been miss informed I thought today was pa deadline but it was actually last Monday. Jill Stein has been blowing smoke up ppls ass.

Sounds like the Green Party.

[Daerio]

Except the EC - as intended by the founders - was never meant to just "follow their constituency", and they would not be "overturning an election" if they voted contrary to the popular vote in their state. Their votes ARE the election.

Our law functions by precedent. There is no precedent for this hypothetical nonsense for which you speak. Ours is a contentious political system, one side does not simply get to act within a vacuum. If EC reps suddenly decided for the first time this year they wanted to decide the election instead of the votes, there would be recompense.

[Daerio]

actually do a real campaign in 4 years? Hookers and blow?

Either way, Trump is saying he supports its. he claimed millions voted illegally.

Unfortunately nobody is doing a real accounting in California where most of the illegals are voting. Not that there would be much point because without voter ID laws and no paper trail, there's literally nothing to verify. But that is as intended.

[jackofwind]

Our law functions by precedent. There is no precedent for this hypothetical nonsense for which you speak. Ours is a contentious political system, one side does not simply get to act within a vacuum. If EC reps suddenly decided for the first time this year they wanted to decide the election instead of the votes, there would be recompense.

That's what happens when you leave it up to an assembly of voters instead of the people - there's always that chance that they choose something on their own. It would still be the system functioning the way it was designed to.

[Skroe]

Rules are written down as clear as day. Hillary knew the rules, Trump knew the rules.

They played the game and Hillary lost. Your personal opinions don't matter, she lost.

Strictly speaking, Endus is correct. While as a practical matter, American's votes on Election Day in November determine the vote of the Elector that chooses their President... the actual choosing of a President happens in December when the Electoral College votes. This is the very essence of the indirect voting method the US uses.

Our Constitution lays out the process very clearly. Where any election to go the the House of Representatives, as has happened before, while it would be extremely rare and historic, it would not be abnormal. The procedural steps for electing a President are very clearly laid out.

Had we a slightly different arrangement, where with the presence of a successful third party and no candidate was able to achieve 270 electoral votes, we wouldn't declare them President then and there until the House chose a President. Extrapolating from that logic, while convention has us calling Trump President-elect, strictly speaking, the official vote that will make him that is in December.

Our society has gotten far, far, far too comfortable with these inconvenient shortcuts through procedure and there needs to be a renorming. In Democracies, procedure, under the law, legitimizes. Let me offer a counter example - it was patently ridiculous for Obama and his supporters to groundlessly call the Paris Climate Treaty 'ratified' a few months back, because the Senate never voted and gave a 2/3rds majority assent to it. Obama signing on to an Executive Agreement does not "ratify" anything and it is deeply irresponsible of him and his supporters to use that word and imply it is a Treaty, outside the norms of how the actual treaty process works. This was of course, the case because Obama would never be able to get the Paris Climate Treaty through the Senate. While Obama signing onto an executive agreement is legitimate, implying it has the legal weight and is worthy of the the standing of a treaty, is wholly illegitimate. Basically no process, no legitimacy. Simple as that. And I say that as someone generally in favor of the treaty, but hey, President Obama's entire Eight Years were Mr. Shortcut on his part, so that was par for the course for him.

We should never forget the monumental stupidity, in retrospect, of the "Fierce Urgency of Now" and all that crap that glib jackass hoisted on this country in order to justify his extraordinary lassitude in politicking to win difficult votes. Because of that we should hold our leaders and ourselves to the HIGHEST standards of the law, of procedure, and of democracy and not the lowest. Procedure and institutions are the foundation of functional democracy. Hell the failure of nation building the world over more than anything else is, in part, a failure of the ability to build institutions BY establishing fair, independent, just procedures under the law. Even when it's written down you get things like the Iraqi prime minister doing most anything he wants.

Trump not yet being "officially" President-elect because the Electoral college hasn't met yet doesn't in any way shape or form make his Electoral Victory earlier this month illegitimate. It just means that the next step in our process hasn't happened yet. It's as simple as that. What would make him illegitimate is if he and his supporters start to claim that that legitimizing step was irrelevant. It is in the Constitution, and as a matter of fact, it is THE relevant step.