Conyers Calls Out McCain Over Voter Suppression

The Hill ^ | 9/19/08 | Andy Barr

[csvset]

Every election, the same old crap. Blacks are being kept from voting. The same crap over and over again.

[Perdogg]

If there are two disputed set of electors, both houses of Congress would vote on which set of electors to accept. Even if there is a split among the House and Senate, it would go back to the Governor. Since that Granholm is Governor, she would chose the Obama slate.

[FredZarguna]

Nope.

[driftless2]

"where did I hear this"

My hardcore Democratic near-ninety pappy told me recently that he's never seen things so bad. So I asked dear old dad if today was worse than the Great Depression. He said yes. My father lived in Detroit for a good share of his youth, and maybe he told Conyers. (smirk)

[an amused spectator]

It’s amazing that Conyers can form these “thoughts” while he’s crapping in his Depends, and drooling all over himself.>[p>
You go, Crap-Boy!

[Perdogg]

I am right, look it up. It’s the law, Electoral Count Act in 1887. It was put in right after the election of 1876.

[FredZarguna]

There is no provision in the Electoral Count Act for returning a disputed set of electors in the event of a tie between the House and the Senate. You are simply mistaken. The Act says that in the event of more than one set of electors, or if a set of electors is disputed by one Congressman and one Senator at the time the count of vote occurs, then the electors certified by the state shall be deemed to be authoritative. It's not a decision made by the Governor, it is simply the act of certifying the election -- usually done by the State's Secretary of State -- long before EC vote counting takes place.

The heart of the dispute in Bush v. Gore was that in order to meet the safe harbor provisions of the law, the electors needed to be certified before a meaningful recount could be obtained. Note the timing: the Governor would have had nothing to say about a dispute in the EC vote count at the point where the House and Senate would (potentially) become involved in 2001, because Florida law required certification by the Governors appointee before the safe harbor date; and so does the controlling US Code 5.3. This is what the SCOTUS ruled.

[Perdogg]

Mark Levin explained this on his show. In the event there are two different slate of electors, let’s say, one slate for Gore and one for Bush.

The House would have voted for the Bush Slate and the Senate would have voted for the Gore Slate. In order to resolve the the deadlock, the matter would have gone back to the Governor of Florida, who was Jeb Bush, and Bush would have won.

[FredZarguna]

I have a lot of respect for Levin, but if he said that, he was mistaken.

[shield]

The release this week of John Fund's book Stealing Elections. This is an incredibly important book. John exposes the plans of the ultimate "community organizer" ACORN to commit massive voter fraud in cities throughout the country - and details how Obama is an ACORN operative. He was a "community organizer for ACORN and then their lawyer.

Obambi, John reveals, has 9,000 lawyers ready to challenge November 4 election results in thousands of precincts in hundreds of counties in dozens of states, all under the phony claim of "voter suppression" perpetrated by evil election-stealing Republicans.

Just to take one single county, Bernalillo County in New Mexico: over 1,000 fraudulent voters registrations have been submitted by ACORN, and if they are not accepted, ACORN will scream "voter suppression!"

Incidentally, Obambi's call for his followers to "argue with your neighbors and get in their face" if they don't support him (9/17 in Elko NV) is a classic ACORN intimidation technique. Read John's book.