What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.

[Lakhota]

Some food for thought:

Are there restrictions on who the Electors can vote for?

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states. Some states, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.

The National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) has compiled a brief summary of state laws about the various procedures, which vary from state to state, for selecting slates of potential electors and for conducting the meeting of the electors. The document, Summary: State Laws Regarding Presidential Electors, can be downloaded from the resources/elections menu on the NASS website.

Much More: U. S. Electoral College: Who Are the Electors? How Do They Vote?

I'm already familiar with the fact that some states require the Electoral College to go along with the majority in that state. Still, while the majority voted (albeit through some voter fraud) for Clinton, those states which mandate that the Electoral College vote with the majority were enough to tip it in favor of Trump. That still didn't involve Russia. The only thing Russia did was to expose the DNC's rotten deal with Bernie Sanders, Russia's preferred candidate.

Russians illegally hacked and released private DNC data. Obviously many low-information voters were influenced by it. Why wasn't RNC data illegally hacked and released in the same manner?

Two choices...1) The computer defenses on the RNC's computers were better than the DNC's, or 2) Putin hates the Corporate Whore so much he only wanted her stuff hacked.

I support #2.

It was #2. Clinton and Putin both hate each other. Hillary received 3 million more popular votes; therefore, she should be president.

But, she's not and never will be...because she lost more states than Trump and it's the STATES that count.

It ain't about states - it's about people. During state elections, the states can do what they want - but not for national elections. One person - one vote.

 

[IM2]

I don't think we can discuss voter turnout and not talk about voter suppression.

 

[bripat9643]

Chief shitting Bull's position is that since Session's shook Klysiac''s hand in a greeting line, the election is fraudulent and Hillary must be made President.

True, but only after Mueller finishes and reports his final investigation report. If Trump is proven to have committed criminal TREASON - then Hillary should become president. She won the popular vote by 3 million. Regardless, she was cheated out of the presidency.

Let me get this straight: you think it was treason for Sessions to shake Kislyak's hand?

That's not all Sessions did. Plus, he lied about it.

What treasonous actions did Sessions engage in?

Furthermore, he didn't lie about it. Any rational person would reasonably conclude that "contact" does not mean shaking someone's hand in a greeting line. Only anal retentive snowflake douchebags would think that.

No, he just lied to Congress about meeting with Russians. That's all Sessions did (that we currently know of, anyway). Which is A OK for an immoral, worthless Repug like you.

Franken asked Sessions if anyone in the Trump campaign had "communicated with the Russian government." Shaking the ambassador's hand in a greeting line does not constitute "communicating with the Russian government" by any stretch of the imagination. Only delusional brain damaged snowflakes believe it does.

If Sessions like, then why didn't Herr Mewler indict him for perjury?

 

[bripat9643]

I'm already familiar with the fact that some states require the Electoral College to go along with the majority in that state. Still, while the majority voted (albeit through some voter fraud) for Clinton, those states which mandate that the Electoral College vote with the majority were enough to tip it in favor of Trump. That still didn't involve Russia. The only thing Russia did was to expose the DNC's rotten deal with Bernie Sanders, Russia's preferred candidate.

Russians illegally hacked and released private DNC data. Obviously many low-information voters were influenced by it. Why wasn't RNC data illegally hacked and released in the same manner?

Two choices...1) The computer defenses on the RNC's computers were better than the DNC's, or 2) Putin hates the Corporate Whore so much he only wanted her stuff hacked.

I support #2.

It was #2. Clinton and Putin both hate each other. Hillary received 3 million more popular votes; therefore, she should be president.

But, she's not and never will be...because she lost more states than Trump and it's the STATES that count.

It ain't about states - it's about people. During state elections, the states can do what they want - but not for national elections. One person - one vote.

The Constitution is about states. The states approved the Consitution, not a majority vote. You would know that if you weren't such a dumbass and knew something about the history of this country.

 

[Lakhota]

Russians illegally hacked and released private DNC data. Obviously many low-information voters were influenced by it. Why wasn't RNC data illegally hacked and released in the same manner?

Two choices...1) The computer defenses on the RNC's computers were better than the DNC's, or 2) Putin hates the Corporate Whore so much he only wanted her stuff hacked.

I support #2.

It was #2. Clinton and Putin both hate each other. Hillary received 3 million more popular votes; therefore, she should be president.

But, she's not and never will be...because she lost more states than Trump and it's the STATES that count.

It ain't about states - it's about people. During state elections, the states can do what they want - but not for national elections. One person - one vote.

The Constitution is about states. The states approved the Consitution, not a majority vote. You would know that if you weren't such a dumbass and knew something about the history of this country.

Like the obsolete 2nd Amendment, history doesn't mean shit if it isn't serving us well today. Popular vote!

 

[bripat9643]

Two choices...1) The computer defenses on the RNC's computers were better than the DNC's, or 2) Putin hates the Corporate Whore so much he only wanted her stuff hacked.

I support #2.

It was #2. Clinton and Putin both hate each other. Hillary received 3 million more popular votes; therefore, she should be president.

But, she's not and never will be...because she lost more states than Trump and it's the STATES that count.

It ain't about states - it's about people. During state elections, the states can do what they want - but not for national elections. One person - one vote.

The Constitution is about states. The states approved the Consitution, not a majority vote. You would know that if you weren't such a dumbass and knew something about the history of this country.

Like the obsolete 2nd Amendment, history doesn't mean shit if it isn't serving us well today. Popular vote!

The Constitution is the law, you fucking moron. the 2nd Amendment serves us very well to protect us from Stalinist assholes like you.

 

[Avatar4321]

If fraud is proven, it seems to me that the winner of the most popular votes should become president. However, our Constitution doesn't address that. If Trump and Pence are indicted and/or impeached - I certainly don't want Paul Ryan to become president.

In what way was the EC fraudulent?

Seriously on what planet do you live on that finding fraud is even a slim possibility?

 

[Avatar4321]

Two choices...1) The computer defenses on the RNC's computers were better than the DNC's, or 2) Putin hates the Corporate Whore so much he only wanted her stuff hacked.

I support #2.

It was #2. Clinton and Putin both hate each other. Hillary received 3 million more popular votes; therefore, she should be president.

But, she's not and never will be...because she lost more states than Trump and it's the STATES that count.

It ain't about states - it's about people. During state elections, the states can do what they want - but not for national elections. One person - one vote.

The Constitution is about states. The states approved the Consitution, not a majority vote. You would know that if you weren't such a dumbass and knew something about the history of this country.

Like the obsolete 2nd Amendment, history doesn't mean shit if it isn't serving us well today. Popular vote!

How is our right to self defense obsolete? Have evil people stopped attacking others? Have the people marching on Washington heard that these attacks have stopped?

 

[IM2]

True, but only after Mueller finishes and reports his final investigation report. If Trump is proven to have committed criminal TREASON - then Hillary should become president. She won the popular vote by 3 million. Regardless, she was cheated out of the presidency.

Let me get this straight: you think it was treason for Sessions to shake Kislyak's hand?

That's not all Sessions did. Plus, he lied about it.

What treasonous actions did Sessions engage in?

Furthermore, he didn't lie about it. Any rational person would reasonably conclude that "contact" does not mean shaking someone's hand in a greeting line. Only anal retentive snowflake douchebags would think that.

No, he just lied to Congress about meeting with Russians. That's all Sessions did (that we currently know of, anyway). Which is A OK for an immoral, worthless Repug like you.

Franken asked Sessions if anyone in the Trump campaign had "communicated with the Russian government." Shaking the ambassador's hand in a greeting line does not constitute "communicating with the Russian government" by any stretch of the imagination. Only delusional brain damaged snowflakes believe it does.

If Sessions like, then why didn't Herr Mewler indict him for perjury?

Sessions recused himself. The question you need to ask is if Sessions was so innocent why did he recuse himself?

 

[bripat9643]

Let me get this straight: you think it was treason for Sessions to shake Kislyak's hand?

That's not all Sessions did. Plus, he lied about it.

What treasonous actions did Sessions engage in?

Furthermore, he didn't lie about it. Any rational person would reasonably conclude that "contact" does not mean shaking someone's hand in a greeting line. Only anal retentive snowflake douchebags would think that.

No, he just lied to Congress about meeting with Russians. That's all Sessions did (that we currently know of, anyway). Which is A OK for an immoral, worthless Repug like you.

Franken asked Sessions if anyone in the Trump campaign had "communicated with the Russian government." Shaking the ambassador's hand in a greeting line does not constitute "communicating with the Russian government" by any stretch of the imagination. Only delusional brain damaged snowflakes believe it does.

If Sessions like, then why didn't Herr Mewler indict him for perjury?

Sessions recused himself. The question you need to ask is if Sessions was so innocent why did he recuse himself?

He did it because he's a spineless moron.

 

[Snouter]

Lakhota, what elementary school did you drop out of? Just curious.

 

[Papageorgio]

The lack of an established process for reviewing elections points to a larger issue: The structures established by the Constitution assumed a world in which the presidency and the Electoral College were not fully absorbed into a contentious national party system. That vision has long since been replaced by one in which presidential elections are national contests over policy agendas and ideas. The text of our Constitution has never been changed to reflect this reality. Instead, the Electoral College remains the final word on who gets to be president. When it comes to the possibility that the winning side colluded with a foreign power to influence the election outcome, the Constitution doesn’t offer much in the way of a plan.

Much More: What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.

I have only quoted the last paragraph. All the details are in the previous eleven paragraphs. The bottom line appears to be that our Constitution is not equipped to deal with such an event. Hence, a constitutional crisis.

And this has relevance to the 2016 election how?

If anything was fraudulent, it was the Obama administration working illegally behind the scenes to defeat Trump

Try to focus on what the thread topic actually deals with - and not your paranoia.

You are the one paranoid. What if’s? Constitutional crisis? What if gravity is outlawed?

 

[IM2]

I'm quite sure we'd be hearing the same thing from you conservatives had Hillary lost but got the most electoral votes.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Two choices...1) The computer defenses on the RNC's computers were better than the DNC's, or 2) Putin hates the Corporate Whore so much he only wanted her stuff hacked.

I support #2.

It was #2. Clinton and Putin both hate each other. Hillary received 3 million more popular votes; therefore, she should be president.

But, she's not and never will be...because she lost more states than Trump and it's the STATES that count.

It ain't about states - it's about people. During state elections, the states can do what they want - but not for national elections. One person - one vote.

The Constitution is about states. The states approved the Consitution, not a majority vote. You would know that if you weren't such a dumbass and knew something about the history of this country.

Like the obsolete 2nd Amendment, history doesn't mean shit if it isn't serving us well today. Popular vote!

"Serving us well today" = "giving leftists everything they want and silencing their opposition"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The lack of an established process for reviewing elections points to a larger issue: The structures established by the Constitution assumed a world in which the presidency and the Electoral College were not fully absorbed into a contentious national party system. That vision has long since been replaced by one in which presidential elections are national contests over policy agendas and ideas. The text of our Constitution has never been changed to reflect this reality. Instead, the Electoral College remains the final word on who gets to be president. When it comes to the possibility that the winning side colluded with a foreign power to influence the election outcome, the Constitution doesn’t offer much in the way of a plan.

Much More: What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.

I have only quoted the last paragraph. All the details are in the previous eleven paragraphs. The bottom line appears to be that our Constitution is not equipped to deal with such an event. Hence, a constitutional crisis.

Interesting. One of the biggest problems with the electoral college is that it's rigged against highly populated states such as California. Wyoming has a population of about 580,000 and is worth 3 electoral college votes. That is 1 electoral college vote for every 193,000 people.

California has a population of 39.5 million, which is 68 times more than Wyoming. This means that California should have around 200 electoral college votes, if using the same ratio as Wyoming: 68 x 3 electoral votes = 204. Instead, California only has 55 electoral college votes.

This is completely unfair and the game is rigged to give Repubs a fighting chance in every Presidential election. If California was worth 200 electoral college votes like it should be, then Repubs would never have a chance in hell of winning a Presidential election ever again.

One of the biggest problems with the electoral college is that it's rigged against highly populated states such as California.

That's a feature, not a bug.

This is completely unfair

To amend the Constitution, you need a 2/3rds vote of the House and Senate.
And then you only need to get 3/4 of the states (38) to agree.
You'd better get to work.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There isn't any evidence of any "collusion" with Russians. Even if there was, it's not even a crime, let alone treason. He also didn't lie about anything before Congress. Even if he did, that still isn't treason.

You're just a silly hysterical snowflake who believes something is true because you want it to be true.

TRUMP could still be impeached if he was party to collusion with a hostile nation to gain the presidency.. But .I expect that charges of collusion would not loosen the Republican grip on the White House. Even though trickery by a foreign entity was used to influence voters ensconced in critical electoral districts and or] cannot be reversed. .
.
]

Even though trickery by a foreign entity was used to influence voters

How many Dems were dumb enough to be fooled by a few thousand dollars of Facebook ads?

Wtf????Dems didn't vote for. Trump.

Wtf????Dems didn't vote for. Trump.

Sure they did, that's why Trump won in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Those weren't dems...those were people like me who vote independently. Do you remember when California went red several times. Resgan was governor there because of independent oridinary people.

It wasn't stupid Dems tricked by a few thousand dollars of Facebook ads, it was stupid independents?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There isn't any evidence of any "collusion" with Russians. Even if there was, it's not even a crime, let alone treason. He also didn't lie about anything before Congress. Even if he did, that still isn't treason.

You're just a silly hysterical snowflake who believes something is true because you want it to be true.

TRUMP could still be impeached if he was party to collusion with a hostile nation to gain the presidency.. But .I expect that charges of collusion would not loosen the Republican grip on the White House. Even though trickery by a foreign entity was used to influence voters ensconced in critical electoral districts and or] cannot be reversed. .
.
]

Even though trickery by a foreign entity was used to influence voters

How many Dems were dumb enough to be fooled by a few thousand dollars of Facebook ads?

Wtf????Dems didn't vote for. Trump.

Wtf????Dems didn't vote for. Trump.

Sure they did, that's why Trump won in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Dems stayed at home and did not vote in many places.

Russian ads didn't change their votes? Hmmmmm......

 

[Bush92]

The lack of an established process for reviewing elections points to a larger issue: The structures established by the Constitution assumed a world in which the presidency and the Electoral College were not fully absorbed into a contentious national party system. That vision has long since been replaced by one in which presidential elections are national contests over policy agendas and ideas. The text of our Constitution has never been changed to reflect this reality. Instead, the Electoral College remains the final word on who gets to be president. When it comes to the possibility that the winning side colluded with a foreign power to influence the election outcome, the Constitution doesn’t offer much in the way of a plan.

Much More: What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.

I have only quoted the last paragraph. All the details are in the previous eleven paragraphs. The bottom line appears to be that our Constitution is not equipped to deal with such an event. Hence, a constitutional crisis.

What would happen if you posted something meaningful?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm already familiar with the fact that some states require the Electoral College to go along with the majority in that state. Still, while the majority voted (albeit through some voter fraud) for Clinton, those states which mandate that the Electoral College vote with the majority were enough to tip it in favor of Trump. That still didn't involve Russia. The only thing Russia did was to expose the DNC's rotten deal with Bernie Sanders, Russia's preferred candidate.

Russians illegally hacked and released private DNC data. Obviously many low-information voters were influenced by it. Why wasn't RNC data illegally hacked and released in the same manner?

I said....Russia interfered with the DNC....BECAUSE.....your DNC, screwed over Bernie Sanders, as Russia wanted a socialist in power. Once Bernie was out, that just left Trump and the skank, and the Kremlin then felt that a businessman might be better than Clinton. Russia had no control over the voting machines themselves. The manufacturer of the voting machines even came out and said that if a voting machine was placed in Red Square, the Russians still couldn't "hack" them, because that isn't how the machines work. If the Russians could have affected the voting machines, Trump would have won the popular vote by a huge majority. He didn't the Electoral College decided it.

Fuck Bernie Sanders! He's a lunatic! He wasn't even a Democrat. The EC should be abolished and go totally with popular vote. It should be about people - not acreage.

U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions

.
It is not about people OR acreage. It's about States

National elections should be about people. Each state contributes it's share of legally registered/cast votes into the pool. If more registered voters live in California than Wyoming - tough shit. One person - one vote.

National elections should be about people. Each state contributes it's share of legally registered/cast votes into the pool.

Maybe, if we booted all the illegal aliens, required voter ID and improved the security of the ballot for 20 years, first, we could talk about amending the Constitution. Maybe.

 

[Trump The Mad King]

True, but only after Mueller finishes and reports his final investigation report. If Trump is proven to have committed criminal TREASON - then Hillary should become president. She won the popular vote by 3 million. Regardless, she was cheated out of the presidency.

Let me get this straight: you think it was treason for Sessions to shake Kislyak's hand?

That's not all Sessions did. Plus, he lied about it.

What treasonous actions did Sessions engage in?

Furthermore, he didn't lie about it. Any rational person would reasonably conclude that "contact" does not mean shaking someone's hand in a greeting line. Only anal retentive snowflake douchebags would think that.

No, he just lied to Congress about meeting with Russians. That's all Sessions did (that we currently know of, anyway). Which is A OK for an immoral, worthless Repug like you.

Franken asked Sessions if anyone in the Trump campaign had "communicated with the Russian government." Shaking the ambassador's hand in a greeting line does not constitute "communicating with the Russian government" by any stretch of the imagination. Only delusional brain damaged snowflakes believe it does.

If Sessions like, then why didn't Herr Mewler indict him for perjury?

Wrong, Repug goober. You never get tired of your bullshit lies. And Sessions very well may get indicted. However, he was smart enough to admit that he already lied to Congress, so Mueller may cut him some slack. --

One U.S. official said that Sessions — who testified that he had no recollection of an April encounter — has provided “misleading” statements that are “contradicted by other evidence.” A former official said that the intelligence indicates that Sessions and Kislyak had “substantive” discussions on matters including Trump’s positions on Russia-related issues and prospects for U.S.-Russia relations in a Trump administration.

Sessions discussed Trump campaign-related matters with Russian ambassador, U.S. intelligence intercepts show