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

[Papageorgio]

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!

That doesn't require a change in law, dumb ass. It should already be happening.

And you called me names first, fucktard.

Again, instead of crying and getting your panties in a wad on a message board, sue the government for real change, if they are violating the Constitution then sue them to make them follow the Constitution. Until the. You are just another poor snowflake that has nothing.

Didn't say that either, dipshit. You did. I'm simply pointing out that California should be worth about 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's electoral college representation.

You lost the debate and now you are trying to change the subject with some other bullshit distraction.

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!

That doesn't require a change in law, dumb ass. It should already be happening.

And you called me names first, fucktard.

Again, instead of crying and getting your panties in a wad on a message board, sue the government for real change, if they are violating the Constitution then sue them to make them follow the Constitution. Until the. You are just another poor snowflake that has nothing.

Didn't say that either, dipshit. You did. I'm simply pointing out that California should be worth about 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's electoral college representation.

You lost the debate and now you are trying to change the subject with some other bullshit distraction.

You said there is nothing in the Constitution that says a small state to have more voting power than a larger state. If you want to change the law the. Go sue someone nutcase. You can’t because you can’t and all you can do is cry like the little birch you are. Poor baby!

 

[Trump The Mad King]

No. If Wyoming is worth 3, then California should be worth around 200. California is 68 times larger than Wyoming. 68 x 3 = 204 electoral college votes.

What's fair is fair.

You want to live in a tyranny of the majority country. Of course you do

I want to live in "tyranny" of the majority of voters. Yep, you got me.

Why should a voter in Wyoming have more power than a voter in California?

They don't. The House is apportioned by population and they can't get any new laws through without passing the House. Well, unless the SCOTUS wants to legislate them.

And majority rule is just two wolves and a sheep voting what's for dinner

That simply isn't true. Wyoming has much greater representation than California, as has been previously explained.

It's 100% true, moron. Wyoming has the number of members in the House specified by the Constitution. Are you claiming it should have none?

You're such an idiot Repug carnival barker, you have no idea what I'm saying. Just shut-up and let some grown-ups debate.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

I know you're really bad at math, but Wyoming's 3 EC votes is not 3 times California's 55 EC votes.

Again, California should have 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's current electoral college representation.

Not according to the Constitution. Sorry.

You simply don't get it, goober. You obviously don't understand the concept of ratios. Re-read my first post. And the Constitution does not address this. Sorry to keep pointing this out to you.

You obviously don't understand the concept of ratios.

55:3, I understand ratios just fine.
You obviously can't read.

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

Yes, and California should have about 200 representatives in the House. Again, this is not a Constitutional issue.

In 1911 they passed a law to limit the House to 435 members. Sorry.

Well, golly....I guess laws were never meant to be changed. It makes little sense for the least populated states to have significantly more political power than the most populated states. A 2 to 1 voting ratio, maybe I can live with. Not over 3 to 1, like Wyoming vs California.

And like I said...it's not a Constitutional issue.

ROFL! It's hard to believe how fucking dumb you are. Of course it's a Constitutional issue. It's specied in the Constitution, moron.

 

[Trump The Mad King]

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!

That doesn't require a change in law, dumb ass. It should already be happening.

And you called me names first, fucktard.

Again, instead of crying and getting your panties in a wad on a message board, sue the government for real change, if they are violating the Constitution then sue them to make them follow the Constitution. Until the. You are just another poor snowflake that has nothing.

Didn't say that either, dipshit. You did. I'm simply pointing out that California should be worth about 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's electoral college representation.

You lost the debate and now you are trying to change the subject with some other bullshit distraction.

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!

That doesn't require a change in law, dumb ass. It should already be happening.

And you called me names first, fucktard.

Again, instead of crying and getting your panties in a wad on a message board, sue the government for real change, if they are violating the Constitution then sue them to make them follow the Constitution. Until the. You are just another poor snowflake that has nothing.

Didn't say that either, dipshit. You did. I'm simply pointing out that California should be worth about 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's electoral college representation.

You lost the debate and now you are trying to change the subject with some other bullshit distraction.

You said there is nothing in the Constitution that says a small state to have more voting power than a larger state. If you want to change the law the. Go sue someone nutcase. You can’t because you can’t and all you can do is cry like the little birch you are. Poor baby!

See my previous post to your Repug butt buddy, Bripat.

You lost the debate. No reason to keep crying about it.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Hillary is "corrupt", yet she still defeated Trump by 3 million votes. Probably a lot more than that when you factor in voter suppression.

So what does that say about how sorry Trump is that he couldn't win the popular vote against a flawed candidate like Hillary?

That tells me Hillary was too stupid to understand how our elections work.

Bill tried telling the dumb bitch she needed to visit certain states, but ignored his advice because she’s lazy.

Nope. It means Trump sucks even more. Which is why he constantly whines that he really did win the popular vote.

And did you support Hillary that was stupid enough to lose to the worst Presidental candidate ever? Lol! Your butt hurt makes us all laugh! Idiot!

She didn't really lose. After all, California should be worth 200 electoral college votes. As I have pointed out to your unremarkable Repug goober ass several times now.

Except the laws aren’t written that way dopey, all you have left is your wet diaper, maybe you need to get it changed. Your loser candidate lost to the worst candidate of all time! Talk about a loser girl.

 

[Papageorgio]

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!

That doesn't require a change in law, dumb ass. It should already be happening.

And you called me names first, fucktard.

Again, instead of crying and getting your panties in a wad on a message board, sue the government for real change, if they are violating the Constitution then sue them to make them follow the Constitution. Until the. You are just another poor snowflake that has nothing.

Didn't say that either, dipshit. You did. I'm simply pointing out that California should be worth about 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's electoral college representation.

You lost the debate and now you are trying to change the subject with some other bullshit distraction.

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!

That doesn't require a change in law, dumb ass. It should already be happening.

And you called me names first, fucktard.

Again, instead of crying and getting your panties in a wad on a message board, sue the government for real change, if they are violating the Constitution then sue them to make them follow the Constitution. Until the. You are just another poor snowflake that has nothing.

Didn't say that either, dipshit. You did. I'm simply pointing out that California should be worth about 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's electoral college representation.

You lost the debate and now you are trying to change the subject with some other bullshit distraction.

You said there is nothing in the Constitution that says a small state to have more voting power than a larger state. If you want to change the law the. Go sue someone nutcase. You can’t because you can’t and all you can do is cry like the little birch you are. Poor baby!

See my previous post to your Repug butt buddy, Bripat.

You lost the debate. No reason to keep crying about it.

I’m not crying, you are a little Whitney bitch, that is all you got?

 

[Flopper]

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.

A president that was clearly elected fraudulently would certainly loose the support his party making it almost impossible for the president to govern and he would be forced to resign. However, if that president was Trump, he would find a way to take the country down with him.

 

[tycho1572]

Hillary is "corrupt", yet she still defeated Trump by 3 million votes. Probably a lot more than that when you factor in voter suppression.

So what does that say about how sorry Trump is that he couldn't win the popular vote against a flawed candidate like Hillary?

That tells me Hillary was too stupid to understand how our elections work.

Bill tried telling the dumb bitch she needed to visit certain states, but ignored his advice because she’s lazy.

Nope. It means Trump sucks even more. Which is why he constantly whines that he really did win the popular vote.

And did you support Hillary that was stupid enough to lose to the worst Presidental candidate ever? Lol! Your butt hurt makes us all laugh! Idiot!

She didn't really lose. After all, California should be worth 200 electoral college votes. As I have pointed out to your unremarkable Repug goober ass several times now.

Except the laws aren’t written that way dopey, all you have left is your wet diaper, maybe you need to get it changed. Your loser candidate lost to the worst candidate of all time! Talk about a loser girl.

That dumb bitch was the best democrats had. It’s why they’re now struggling for donations. lol

 

[rich stacy]

A 2 to 1 voting ratio, maybe I can live with. Not over 3 to 1, like Wyoming vs California.

By population, California would have 68 times the congressmen Wyoming has.
They only have 53 times.

68/53 = 1.28

That's a ratio much lower than the 2 to 1 you said you could live with.
It's a math issue.

It is math issue.
Wyoming has 3 EC votes
California has 67 times the population, so par would give them 200 EC votes

They have 55 200/55 = 3.6

 

[Papageorgio]

I agree with you, I was letting the nut, who you didn’t quote, the one I was actually responding to, that he needs to take it to court If he believes the law is unconstitutional. He has a silly argument and all he does is get on this board and cry, if he wants change then he needs to go try and change it or sue the government and see what happens and see how little he actually knows.

Suing would be a waste of time, money and a burden on the taxpayers. Because of the burden of amending the constitution, purposefully made to have a very high bar, he needs to start to get national support for such a change. As the change would be advantageous to fewer states than it would harm, the odds of those states cutting off their nose to spite their face, is between slim and none, and slim just left town.

The best that can be hoped for is to eliminate the "winner take all" for a states electoral votes, as several states have already done.

He can sue if he wants to, no law against suing is there and then they can throw the whole damn thing out of court, it would be frivolous absolutely without merit. Who the hell cares what the loser does? Not me, not a big deal for me, I like the Electoral College.

 

[IM2]

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.

Seems to be a problem with definition.

And none of this has to do with how they would have reacted had Hillary won the electoral votes and lost the popular vote and becomes president.

 

[hadit]

So dems all agree that their voter base is SO FUCKING STUPID a few ads will get them to vote for Trump?

If advertising doesn't work - why do businesses and politicians spend billions of dollars on it? It is absurd to think that all the conspiracy theories, fake news, lies, Comey, and Russians didn't affect the outcome of the presidential election.

Let us know when it's against the law to buy ads on Facebook.

 

[hadit]

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.

It was set up that way long before the Republican party existed. You're delusional.

 

[Lakhota]

So dems all agree that their voter base is SO FUCKING STUPID a few ads will get them to vote for Trump?

If advertising doesn't work - why do businesses and politicians spend billions of dollars on it? It is absurd to think that all the conspiracy theories, fake news, lies, Comey, and Russians didn't affect the outcome of the presidential election.

Let us know when it's against the law to buy ads on Facebook.

Okay, after Mueller completes his investigation.

 

[Papageorgio]

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!

That doesn't require a change in law, dumb ass. It should already be happening.

And you called me names first, fucktard.

Again, instead of crying and getting your panties in a wad on a message board, sue the government for real change, if they are violating the Constitution then sue them to make them follow the Constitution. Until the. You are just another poor snowflake that has nothing.

Didn't say that either, dipshit. You did. I'm simply pointing out that California should be worth about 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's electoral college representation.

You lost the debate and now you are trying to change the subject with some other bullshit distraction.

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!

That doesn't require a change in law, dumb ass. It should already be happening.

And you called me names first, fucktard.

Again, instead of crying and getting your panties in a wad on a message board, sue the government for real change, if they are violating the Constitution then sue them to make them follow the Constitution. Until the. You are just another poor snowflake that has nothing.

Didn't say that either, dipshit. You did. I'm simply pointing out that California should be worth about 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's electoral college representation.

You lost the debate and now you are trying to change the subject with some other bullshit distraction.

You said there is nothing in the Constitution that says a small state to have more voting power than a larger state. If you want to change the law the. Go sue someone nutcase. You can’t because you can’t and all you can do is cry like the little birch you are. Poor baby!

See my previous post to your Repug butt buddy, Bripat.

You lost the debate. No reason to keep crying about it.

Lol! Loser boi! Poor little bitch.

 

[Trump The Mad King]

You simply don't get it, goober. You obviously don't understand the concept of ratios. Re-read my first post. And the Constitution does not address this. Sorry to keep pointing this out to you.

You obviously don't understand the concept of ratios.

55:3, I understand ratios just fine.
You obviously can't read.

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

Yes, and California should have about 200 representatives in the House. Again, this is not a Constitutional issue.

In 1911 they passed a law to limit the House to 435 members. Sorry.

Well, golly....I guess laws were never meant to be changed. It makes little sense for the least populated states to have significantly more political power than the most populated states. A 2 to 1 voting ratio, maybe I can live with. Not over 3 to 1, like Wyoming vs California.

And like I said...it's not a Constitutional issue.

Well, golly....I guess laws were never meant to be changed.

Well, you can either change the law that limits Reps, or change the Constitution that apportions EC votes.

Or you can keep whining how unfair it is that your drunken candidate was defeated.

A 2 to 1 voting ratio, maybe I can live with. Not over 3 to 1, like Wyoming vs California.

By population, California would have 68 times the congressmen Wyoming has.
They only have 53 times.

68/53 = 1.28

That's a ratio much lower than the 2 to 1 you said you could live with.
It's a math issue.

You're not calculating this correctly. Yes, California does have 68 times the population of Wyoming. But they have nowhere near 68 times as much representation in Congress. 55 / 3 = 18. That means California currently only has 18 times more representation in Congress than Wyoming. Compare the 68 times disparity vs 18 times disparity: 68 / 18 = 3.7.

Each voter in Wyoming has over 3.5 more voting power as each voter in California.

This article also discusses the disparity:

Voters In Wyoming Have 3.6 Times The Voting Power That I Have. It's Time To End The Electoral College. | HuffPost

 

[tycho1572]

So dems all agree that their voter base is SO FUCKING STUPID a few ads will get them to vote for Trump?

If advertising doesn't work - why do businesses and politicians spend billions of dollars on it? It is absurd to think that all the conspiracy theories, fake news, lies, Comey, and Russians didn't affect the outcome of the presidential election.

Let us know when it's against the law to buy ads on Facebook.

Okay, after Mueller completes his investigation.

You’ll still find something to bitch about.

You people aren’t happy unless you’re whining and bitching about something.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A 2 to 1 voting ratio, maybe I can live with. Not over 3 to 1, like Wyoming vs California.

By population, California would have 68 times the congressmen Wyoming has.
They only have 53 times.

68/53 = 1.28

That's a ratio much lower than the 2 to 1 you said you could live with.
It's a math issue.

It is math issue.
Wyoming has 3 EC votes
California has 67 times the population, so par would give them 200 EC votes

They have 55 200/55 = 3.6

Wyoming has 3 EC votes
California has 67 times the population, so par would give them 200 EC votes

Ummm...Wyoming has 2 senate seats, so does California.
Why should California get 134 senate seats?

 

[Trump The Mad King]

That tells me Hillary was too stupid to understand how our elections work.

Bill tried telling the dumb bitch she needed to visit certain states, but ignored his advice because she’s lazy.

Nope. It means Trump sucks even more. Which is why he constantly whines that he really did win the popular vote.

He did win the popular vote with legal voters.

Great retort, Repug goober. And of course you have evidence to show that over 3 million people illegally voted? Of course not, troll.

I’m going to assume you didn’t see this.....

No comment on the vid, Trump The Mad King? lol

No, goober. I didn't even watch it. I'm not interested in your mentally ill Repug diatribes. So Obama lies about everything else according to you Repugs, but in this video he is suddenly revealing something truthful about illegal voters??? Got it, goober. How utterly logical.

Voter fraud has been repeatedly studied over and over and they never find shit. Everyone with a brain knows this, which excludes dishonest Repugs such as yourself.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You obviously don't understand the concept of ratios.

55:3, I understand ratios just fine.
You obviously can't read.

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

Yes, and California should have about 200 representatives in the House. Again, this is not a Constitutional issue.

In 1911 they passed a law to limit the House to 435 members. Sorry.

Well, golly....I guess laws were never meant to be changed. It makes little sense for the least populated states to have significantly more political power than the most populated states. A 2 to 1 voting ratio, maybe I can live with. Not over 3 to 1, like Wyoming vs California.

And like I said...it's not a Constitutional issue.

Well, golly....I guess laws were never meant to be changed.

Well, you can either change the law that limits Reps, or change the Constitution that apportions EC votes.

Or you can keep whining how unfair it is that your drunken candidate was defeated.

A 2 to 1 voting ratio, maybe I can live with. Not over 3 to 1, like Wyoming vs California.

By population, California would have 68 times the congressmen Wyoming has.
They only have 53 times.

68/53 = 1.28

That's a ratio much lower than the 2 to 1 you said you could live with.
It's a math issue.

You're not calculating this correctly. Yes, California does have 68 times the population of Wyoming. But they have nowhere near 68 times as much representation in Congress. 55 / 3 = 18. That means California currently only has 18 times more representation in Congress than Wyoming. Compare the 68 times disparity vs 18 times disparity: 68 / 18 = 3.7.

Each voter in Wyoming has over 3.5 more voting power as each voter in California.

This article also discusses the disparity:

Voters In Wyoming Have 3.6 Times The Voting Power That I Have. It's Time To End The Electoral College. | HuffPost

Yes, California does have 68 times the population of Wyoming. But they have nowhere near 68 times as much representation in Congress.

I agree, California only has 53 times the congressmen as Wyoming, they "should" have 68 congressmen.

68 + 2 = 70 EC votes.

55 / 3 = 18. That means California currently only has 18 times more representation in Congress than Wyoming. Compare the 68 times disparity vs 18 times disparity: 68 / 18 = 3.7.

Nope. 68 / 53 is only 1.28

You're forgetting that every state gets 2 senate seats, without regard to population.
You can't whine that California should have 136 seats in the Senate.
Well, you can, but we'll just point and laugh at your idiocy.