Posted on 11/28/2016 9:20:23 AM PST by jpeg82
Wisconsin election officials pledged Monday they would oversee a fast and fair recount of the presidential vote there, as they race to beat a federal deadline for getting it done done, but they declined a request to conduct the new tally by hand.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
They are trying to go for a do over....You heard it here first, folks.
Gee... why get personal about it, and it’s not an upset that I suspect they’re up to.
The correct term is a “coup”, or treason if you will.
It doesn’t take a moonbat of any kind, all it takes is to know who we’re dealing with here.
That isn't what would happen. Here is what the Constitution says: "The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed;"
"electors appointed", not "electors potentially appointed". If Wisconson or other states do not appoint electors because they are still counting votes then the total number of "electors appointed goes down from 535. As a result the magic number to win will no longer be 270, it will be 1/2 of the total cast, plus 1.
It's possible if Hillary could get states to tie up their electoral votes and not appoint electors she could win outright. It need not go to the house, and indeed likely will not as there are no third-party electoral votes to make a 3 way split possible. (A tie is still possible).
Is that how it works?
I always thought you’d ask the machine: “Did you count every vote correctly?”
And it would reply, “Yepper!”
:-)
the Court ruled that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards of counting in different counties and ruled that no alternative method could be established within the time limit set by Title 3 of the United States Code (3 U.S.C.), § 5 ("Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors"), which was December 12.[1] The vote regarding the Equal Protection Clause was 7–2, and regarding the lack of an alternative method was 5–4.[2]
A Freeper posted a summary of it over the weekend on another thread. I'll see if I can track it down and post it here.
Thanks for injecting some sanity into this hyped up nothing burger of a recount. It's all somewhere between an hysterical last ditch effort on the Left, an effort to discredit the election process, or plain click-bait being pushed by the media, who apparently can't be bothered by actually reading the Constitution or Amendments.
Text of the 12th Amendment reads...
"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.
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. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.[Note 1]
The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.[1]
It's not that hard, really.
The States appoint electors based on the method they have determined via statue. Currently, in every case it's a result of popular vote in the States. The electors are chosen by the Party of the candidate. In other words their are Trump electors and Hillary electors.
Based on the election results one slate or the other is appointed by the state to cast their electoral votes.
If a state can not decide who won for whatever reason then it will not be able to appoint electors.
There is clear precedent from my interpretation. In the Eivil War era Presidential Election of 1864 there were 11 Southern States which did not send electors. There were not counted as appointed, and there was no discussion of the actual number of EV's needed to win including them.
Also, very few Democratic bodies of any type use elections where required majorities for victory are calculated by including those not voting. The US Senate and US House do not. Majority of those present and voting.
Think that is backwards. Today is PA and MI is Wednesday.
and that’s what the 12th amendment seems to be saying.
That, plus the common experience of how all other elections work in the USA. I'm trying to think of one example of where the majority is set by total potential available votes. The only one I can come up with is the supermajority of State's needing to modify the Constitution.
Perhaps the Senate cloture rule, but everyone knows that's a weird Senate innovation and nightmare.
Is anyone here at FR an attorney who understands election law? Anyone? There’s too much speculation and contradiction going on here, I wish we had a true legal expert who could weigh in.
That makes sense. Thanks for such a detailed response.
From the 12th Amendment:
“A MAJORITY of electoral votes is still required for a person to be elected President or Vice President by the Electoral College.”
So what is UNCLEAR here? It says MAJORITY, not 270, which is merely the 50% plus one for the currently allocated 538 Electoral College Votes! If any or all of these states have not certified their election results and appointed Electors, they are simply out of the running. Dropping these three states from the EC vote still gives Trump a MAJORITY, so he wins. All of this “gas passing here” over some “RAT strategy” to move the election to the Congress is just that, unwarranted flatulence!
The plain text of the Constitution and the precedent of the 1864 election are quite clear. One does not need to be a lawyer to understand it. The authors of the Constitution were not lawyers, just citizen patriots, like us. They didn't write an intentionally obscure document that would require advanced training to decipher.
Quite the opposite, they wrote in simple English and made things quite clear.
Only the "Living Breathing" side believes that you need temple priests to interpret it.
“Yep, she gets to sock away the millions if she doesn’t go through with payment. Nice Christmas gift to herself.”
From a financial standpoint, I hope she gets, and is forced to pay for the recounts, since she will simply be pi$$ing away a small portion of Soros ill-gotten money.
So does “our side” not have anyone willing to push the meme that the dumblecrats are trying to disenfranchise the voters of WI, PA and MI with these pointless recounts? If those states’ results are not certified, they do not get their electoral votes? Those millions of voters votes do not count. And we ALL want everyone’s votes to count, right? I mean thats their stated point of all this....
Seems like that would knock a huge hole in the breathless “ooo boy...a recount....watch out now,,,,”
The plain text of the Constitution and the precedent of the 1864 election are quite clear. One does not need to be a lawyer to understand it. The authors of the Constitution were not lawyers, just citizen patriots, like us. They didn’t write an intentionally obscure document that would require advanced training to decipher.
Quite the opposite, they wrote in simple English and made things quite clear.
Only the “Living Breathing” side believes that you need temple priests to interpret
I would feel much better if Trump’s election law attorney(s) came out and made official statements about what can/can’t happen in each state—Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. It’s not just a matter of the U.S. Constitution, it’s also a matter of state election laws in each of the three states.
Drudge got it wrong. So did Gateway Pundit. Those are two big sources Freepers rely on.
Let’s all talk four or more million that were VOTER FRAUD!!!
Voter Fraud!!! The RAT way of electing anyone.
Dead, illegals, felons, etc., etc., etc., etc.
Calling the Trump campaign, expose Hillary’s dirt and the voter fraud! NOW!
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.