Posted on 11/09/2020 1:14:22 PM PST by dontreadthis
snip--- As such, and due directly to these issues (and any others that may arise)r I am requesting that a full audit be conducted of the 2020 General Election prior to the certification of any results. ---snip
(Excerpt) Read more at pahousegop.com ...
“ so much for the information age”
What has happened in the MSM (that includes of course Fox) very much portends a Dark Age not an Information Age.
The media is in full propaganda mode.....stunning display, in full view of the audience, because it’s so obvious!
The republican legislators in all these states could refuse to certify their elections. Biden loses WI, MI, PA, GA, and AZ he’s screwed.
Without the election itself and voters mail-in ballots they could not have pulled this off by packing the polls with fake ballots, and moving ballots electronically, to usher in the illegitimate “Biden Crime Family”.
p
NO, NO, NO! That is not right!
I don't know where you got that idea, cotton1706, but you are so wrong it is ALARMING!
What is the Electoral College?
THIS is...What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 electoral votes?
Are you actually this stupid, cotton1706, or are you just extremely ignorant?
Read reply 106. He doesn’t know what he is talking about.
From the 12th Amendment, U.S. Constitution:
“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.”
The Electoral College is an Assembly, similar to a legislative house.
For example, the House of Representatives has 435 members. It takes 218 members to pass a piece of legislation. But if say five members die or resign, it would then take only 216 to pass a piece of legislation (430 divided by two plus one).
Similarly, if 538 electors are not appointed, then then the majority of those appointed will be less.
The states can FAIL to appoint electors. If a state has not appointed electors by the time they vote on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, it’s too late. The votes in the several states are tallied, sealed and directed to Washington. And the Congress does not have to recognize electors who have been appointed or have voted after the date set by law.
Here’s more info
Legislatures don’t certify elections. County Boards, Secretaries of State and Governors do, barring court intervention.
And your source link...laughable.
Hi. I’m sorry, I’m not sure what issue you are referring to. It looks like cotton’s (sp?) comments on line 108.
During the last Civil War, many states did not send electors during the 1864 election. Consequently, the number of appointed electors was reduced. As a result, the number required to achieve a majority was reduced.
If states do not send electors, they are not appointed, and the same result would apply. If this is your issue, he is correct in my opinion.
1864 United States presidential election
President Abraham Lincoln of the National Union Party easily defeated the Democratic nominee, former General George B. McClellan, by a wide margin of 212–21 in the electoral college, with 55% of the popular vote.
I like this part best...
Snip...Altogether, 212 electoral votes were counted in Congress for Lincoln – more than enough to win the presidency even if all of the states in rebellion had participated and voted against him.
212/21
The number of members didn't change (though some were invalidated which is a separate issue) and the number of votes needed to win didn't change.
I know this math is difficult for you to understand, but please try. I will try to type slowly and use little words.
There were 303 Electoral votes in 1860. It took 152 to win. Since the South was engaged in the War of the Rebellion, you will note that, as you point out in your post, that the appointed members fell to 234 and as a result, only 118 electoral votes were required. That is already net of the 17 disallowed votes from Louisiana and the other state.
The required votes fell from 154 to 118. Get it?
Are you just trying to waste our time here? It is certainly true that belittling someone who is right is not appropriate behavior.
Oh, I understand what you're saying.
I also understand that you're not saying WHY they fell, only that they did.
Tell me the WHY and it'll clear things right up.
Because there were no approved electors from those states. There was no legislation removing those states from the union. They didn’t send any. In fact, two states sent electors that were not “approved” by the Senate.
I see no reason to call other FReepers “stupid” and “extremely ignorant. IMO, that’s poor manners.
I was originally of the opinion that Cotton uses - that a lack of a slate of electors by the deadline means that state is not recognized and the number of Electoral votes to win shrinks as the number of submitted electors shrinks. The 1864 example is a useful one but there’s one major difference. The 2020 states are using the pandemic as an excuse not to submit electors while the 1864 states were responding to a war. Can one crisis be the precedent for another type of precedent? That’s to be determined.
The true answer here is “the situation has never arisen before” and I suspect it may go before the Supreme Court as to what’s recognized and what isn’t. Judges may be swayed by the “count every vote” mob. I’m inclined to think Roberts and the liberal justices will invent some new rule that’s extraconstitutional. This would make Judge Barrett the deciding vote.
However, there are two separate scenarios being debated here which is what leads to the confusion. In the “vote goes to the House” scenario, this only comes into play when no candidate gets more than half of the EVs available. This is extremely rare now in our two-party system but let’s say as a hypothetical that, in 2000, neither Bush nor Gore reached 270 EVs because Pat Buchanan won Florida. In THAT scenario, it goes to the House where it is decided by the votes of state delegations in the House. You’re still dealing with a full deck of 270 EVs.
The other scenario being discussed is what happens when a state fails to submit their slate of electors by the mid-December deadline. This is an ENTIRELY different scenario than the one explained in the previous paragraph. In THIS type of scenario, I believe it is likely the pool of electors is reduced minus the amount of that state’s electoral votes and the winner only needs to produce more than 50%, just as Lincoln did in 1864 however, I suspect it would be taken to the Supreme Court who might decide such old precedents are immaterial.
It should be noted that if “Blue” states hold up their electors, that doesn’t hurt Trump in the least and may help him. So, if NY or CA, for example, fails to submit their electors, that can only hurt Bid*n, not Trump.
So that's 303 in 1860.
...the appointed members fell to 234...
And 234 in 1864.
WHY did the number of members fall? Isn't there a formula for determining the number of members?
Are you leaving something of import out of your exposé? A contributing factor per chance as to the why of the fall?
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.