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

[IM2]

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

If she got the most electoral votes, she wouldn't have lost.

Yeah and had she got the most electoral votes, the fewest popular votes, we'd still be investigating the election, no president would be in office and you conservatives a would be crying abut how the Clintons stole the election.

No we wouldn't.

That's a damn lie. You punks are still yelling lock her up.

She's a proven criminal.

Proven by who?

 

[IM2]

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

WTF!?

I was being sarcastic. Had Hillary won like Trump did, there would be a different song being sang around here.

Republicans would not have rioted like the Democrats did and if the Republicans actually did riot. Obama would have asked the National Guard to step in, instead of praising the rioters.

Yes republicans would have and it would have been worse.

 

[bripat9643]

If she got the most electoral votes, she wouldn't have lost.

Yeah and had she got the most electoral votes, the fewest popular votes, we'd still be investigating the election, no president would be in office and you conservatives a would be crying abut how the Clintons stole the election.

No we wouldn't.

That's a damn lie. You punks are still yelling lock her up.

She's a proven criminal.

yup.... every idiot RW'r has convicted her at least 50 times if not more --- too F'n bad the 8 investigations conducted by Republican committee's saw otherwise ..

yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

They didn't investigate her email crimes, moron.

 

[Papageorgio]

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

WTF!?

I was being sarcastic. Had Hillary won like Trump did, there would be a different song being sang around here.

Republicans would not have rioted like the Democrats did and if the Republicans actually did riot. Obama would have asked the National Guard to step in, instead of praising the rioters.

Yes republicans would have and it would have been worse.

No, just like when McCain, Romney, Bush I and Dole lost, the Republicans went to work. The left wing nuts protested and rioted. History has shown it to be true.

 

[bripat9643]

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

WTF!?

I was being sarcastic. Had Hillary won like Trump did, there would be a different song being sang around here.

Republicans would not have rioted like the Democrats did and if the Republicans actually did riot. Obama would have asked the National Guard to step in, instead of praising the rioters.

Yes republicans would have and it would have been worse.

Democrats have staged all the Temper tantrums resulting from election results, not Republicans.

 

[hunarcy]

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.

As has been pointed out, that's not how it works and was purposely set up this way. The President is the President of the United STATES, not the mob.

 

[IM2]

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

WTF!?

I was being sarcastic. Had Hillary won like Trump did, there would be a different song being sang around here.

Republicans would not have rioted like the Democrats did and if the Republicans actually did riot. Obama would have asked the National Guard to step in, instead of praising the rioters.

Yes republicans would have and it would have been worse.

No, just like when McCain, Romney, Bush I and Dole lost, the Republicans went to work. The left wing nuts protested and rioted. History has shown it to be true.

Sorry but none of them won the popular vote and lost the election. OK? So then let's not try pretending, republicans would have been worse had Hillary won and Trump got the most votes. Your base, who supported Trump pretty much unanimously, are right wing extremists, it would have been worse

 

[Trump The Mad King]

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

Anonymous sources, once again.

Fake news.

Great retort, goober. In other words, you lost the debate.

 

[hunarcy]

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.

You need to read the Constitution. The States LET the people vote, but the individual States could actually choose to cast their votes based on choices made by their Legislatures. It is only about the States.

 

[IM2]

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

WTF!?

I was being sarcastic. Had Hillary won like Trump did, there would be a different song being sang around here.

Republicans would not have rioted like the Democrats did and if the Republicans actually did riot. Obama would have asked the National Guard to step in, instead of praising the rioters.

Yes republicans would have and it would have been worse.

Democrats have staged all the Temper tantrums resulting from election results, not Republicans.

Birtherism and the Tea Party were tantrums by republicans.

 

[hunarcy]

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!

2nd Amendment is not obsolete and if you want the popular vote to be what counts, propose an amendment and get it passed if you can.

 

[Papageorgio]

WTF!?

I was being sarcastic. Had Hillary won like Trump did, there would be a different song being sang around here.

Republicans would not have rioted like the Democrats did and if the Republicans actually did riot. Obama would have asked the National Guard to step in, instead of praising the rioters.

Yes republicans would have and it would have been worse.

No, just like when McCain, Romney, Bush I and Dole lost, the Republicans went to work. The left wing nuts protested and rioted. History has shown it to be true.

Sorry but none of them won the popular vote and lost the election. OK? So then let's not try pretending, republicans would have been worse had Hillary won and Trump got the most votes. Your base, who supported Trump pretty much unanimously, are right wing extremists, it would have been worse

Pure and utter bullshit. Trump was expected to lose, it was going to be a rout according to the polls, why would they riot if they knew they were going to lose anyway. My base is not Republican, I voted for a third party because Democrats and Republicans nominated to really bad candidates and I could support either, I can’t believe 120 million plus voted for either one. We went really dumb the last election.

 

[Trump The Mad King]

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.

That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a citizen in a small state like Wyoming has 3 times the voting power as a citizen in a large state like California. Absolutely nothing.

That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius.

Ummmm.....

Article II
Section 1


2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

And where does it say in there that small states should have over 3 times more voting power in the House or Electoral College than large states? Again, California should have 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's current electoral college representation.

 

[Papageorgio]

WTF!?

I was being sarcastic. Had Hillary won like Trump did, there would be a different song being sang around here.

Republicans would not have rioted like the Democrats did and if the Republicans actually did riot. Obama would have asked the National Guard to step in, instead of praising the rioters.

Yes republicans would have and it would have been worse.

Democrats have staged all the Temper tantrums resulting from election results, not Republicans.

Birtherism and the Tea Party were tantrums by republicans.

And no riots.

 

[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.

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.

That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a citizen in a small state like Wyoming has 3 times the voting power as a citizen in a large state like California. Absolutely nothing.

That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius.

Ummmm.....

Article II
Section 1


2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

And where does it say in there that small states should have over 3 times more voting power in the House or Electoral College than large states? Again, California should have 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's current electoral college representation.

Another left wing butt hurt nutter, if you don’t like the laws, don’t complain and cry, do something to change it. Seriously, you can’t be that dumb.

 

[Trump The Mad King]

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.

That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a citizen in a small state like Wyoming has 3 times the voting power as a citizen in a large state like California. Absolutely nothing.

That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius.

Ummmm.....

Article II
Section 1


2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

And where does it say in there that small states should have over 3 times more voting power in the House or Electoral College than large states? Again, California should have 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's current electoral college representation.

Another left wing butt hurt nutter, if you don’t like the laws, don’t complain and cry, do something to change it. Seriously, you can’t be that dumb.

Dummy, read my previous post. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that grants more voting power to small states vs large states. (except in the Senate)

Therefore, there is nothing to change, idiot.

 

[SavannahMann]

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.

We argued that the Democratic nominations were complete farces and we were told that it didn’t matter, Hillary would have won even if it was fair. Don’t blame the Constitution for not having the foresight to imagine a critter as corrupt as Hillary.

 

[rich stacy]

That's a damn lie. You punks are still yelling lock her up.

She's a proven criminal.

Then I suggest taking your evidence to the nearest US Attorney.

 

[IM2]

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.

You need to read the Constitution. The States LET the people vote, but the individual States could actually choose to cast their votes based on choices made by their Legislatures. It is only about the States.

.States can only do as much as he constitution allows. Federal law is the supreme law of the land.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a citizen in a small state like Wyoming has 3 times the voting power as a citizen in a large state like California. Absolutely nothing.

That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius.

Ummmm.....

Article II
Section 1


2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

And where does it say in there that small states should have over 3 times more voting power in the House or Electoral College than large states? Again, California should have 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's current electoral college representation.

Another left wing butt hurt nutter, if you don’t like the laws, don’t complain and cry, do something to change it. Seriously, you can’t be that dumb.

Dummy, read my previous post. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that grants more voting power to small states vs large states. (except in the Senate)

Therefore, there is nothing to change, idiot.

Yeah, there is, California doesn’t get 200 Electoral College, write your Congressman or sue the government then you can get you 200 votes, until then nothing will change and you call me an idiot? Lol!