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

[toobfreak]

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

Didn't seem to hurt Obamma and he was as fraudulent as a $3 confederate bill. He even used the IRS to suppress his opposition so he could get reelected.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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 That vision has long since been replaced by one in which presidential elections are national contests over policy agendas and ideas.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.

Hey, Squanto, got any proof the election was a fraud? The voices in your head don't count.

 

[JQPublic1]

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. Anyone would reasonably conclude that "contacts" does not mean shaking someone's hand in a greeting line. Only anal retentive snowflake douchebags would think that.

Collusion with Russians and lying about it under oath to Congress. Probably also other stuff that Mueller knows about.

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. .
.
]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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. Anyone would reasonably conclude that "contacts" does not mean shaking someone's hand in a greeting line. Only anal retentive snowflake douchebags would think that.

Collusion with Russians and lying about it under oath to Congress. Probably also other stuff that Mueller knows about.

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?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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. Anyone would reasonably conclude that "contacts" does not mean shaking someone's hand in a greeting line. Only anal retentive snowflake douchebags would think that.

Collusion with Russians and lying about it under oath to Congress. Probably also other stuff that Mueller knows about.

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. .
.
]

You people crack me up.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

 

[JQPublic1]

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. Anyone would reasonably conclude that "contacts" does not mean shaking someone's hand in a greeting line. Only anal retentive snowflake douchebags would think that.

Collusion with Russians and lying about it under oath to Congress. Probably also other stuff that Mueller knows about.

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.

 

[JQPublic1]

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

Most voters aren't Dems or Repubs. If that were the case one party would always be in power. Regular folks just vote for the candidate who they feel will best represent them ...regardless of which party they are registered with.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What treasonous actions did Sessions engage in?

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

Collusion with Russians and lying about it under oath to Congress. Probably also other stuff that Mueller knows about.

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.

 

[bripat9643]

What treasonous actions did Sessions engage in?

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

Collusion with Russians and lying about it under oath to Congress. Probably also other stuff that Mueller knows about.

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.

They voted for Hillary, which proves they are fucking stupid.

 

[Lakhota]

“The Constitution Doesn’t Say.”

That not entirely true.

Article II, Section 4 affords the people the means by which to remove a president from office who conspired to win by means of election fraud, such as interference by Russia.

There is ZERO evidence any such thing happened, you have had over a year to provide us any evidence and you have failed miserably.

Mueller will provide the evidence when he is finished.

He will never finish because he has no evidence now he is digging up old crimes and trying to catch people on perjury.

Duh, how would you know what Mueller is doing!? Does he confide in you?

 

[danielpalos]

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

seems to work for the right wing.

 

[Kondor3]

Wake us up when the November 8, 2016 General Election is invalidated, eh? We can worry about it then.

Meanwhile... don't hold your breath...

 

[LuckyDuck]

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.

Initially it was felt that the Founding Fathers established the Electoral College to balance out the density of the cities versus the rural areas and this has played out as such on more than one occasion. However, on to what would happen if an election were deemed to be fraudulent. As the Constitution does not address such an issue, we can only assume that there would be an additional run-off that would be heavily monitored. Not that your addressing the current presidential run, but, to date, no investigation has shown that Trump had any collusion with Russia and Russia had absolutely no effect on the Electoral College. Those are hand written ballots and signed by the Electoral College, so he won by the current established method of presidential election. If the public wants the Electoral College eliminated in favor of an election by popular vote alone, a 60% majority would have to make that happen to change the Constitution.

 

[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.

 

[Lakhota]

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.

Initially it was felt that the Founding Fathers established the Electoral College to balance out the density of the cities versus the rural areas and this has played out as such on more than one occasion. However, on to what would happen if an election were deemed to be fraudulent. As the Constitution does not address such an issue, we can only assume that there would be an additional run-off that would be heavily monitored. Not that your addressing the current presidential run, but, to date, no investigation has shown that Trump had any collusion with Russia and Russia had absolutely no effect on the Electoral College. Those are hand written ballots and signed by the Electoral College, so he won by the current established method of presidential election. If the public wants the Electoral College eliminated in favor of an election by popular vote alone, a 60% majority would have to make that happen to change the Constitution.

Electors generally vote according to the popular vote in their state. It's rare when they don't.

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?

 

[LuckyDuck]

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.

Initially it was felt that the Founding Fathers established the Electoral College to balance out the density of the cities versus the rural areas and this has played out as such on more than one occasion. However, on to what would happen if an election were deemed to be fraudulent. As the Constitution does not address such an issue, we can only assume that there would be an additional run-off that would be heavily monitored. Not that your addressing the current presidential run, but, to date, no investigation has shown that Trump had any collusion with Russia and Russia had absolutely no effect on the Electoral College. Those are hand written ballots and signed by the Electoral College, so he won by the current established method of presidential election. If the public wants the Electoral College eliminated in favor of an election by popular vote alone, a 60% majority would have to make that happen to change the Constitution.

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.

 

[Lakhota]

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.

Initially it was felt that the Founding Fathers established the Electoral College to balance out the density of the cities versus the rural areas and this has played out as such on more than one occasion. However, on to what would happen if an election were deemed to be fraudulent. As the Constitution does not address such an issue, we can only assume that there would be an additional run-off that would be heavily monitored. Not that your addressing the current presidential run, but, to date, no investigation has shown that Trump had any collusion with Russia and Russia had absolutely no effect on the Electoral College. Those are hand written ballots and signed by the Electoral College, so he won by the current established method of presidential election. If the public wants the Electoral College eliminated in favor of an election by popular vote alone, a 60% majority would have to make that happen to change the Constitution.

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?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Hillary spent $1.2 billion, twice as much as Trump.
Did a couple of hundred thousand in Facebook spending overcome her $600 million advantage?

 

[LuckyDuck]

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.

Initially it was felt that the Founding Fathers established the Electoral College to balance out the density of the cities versus the rural areas and this has played out as such on more than one occasion. However, on to what would happen if an election were deemed to be fraudulent. As the Constitution does not address such an issue, we can only assume that there would be an additional run-off that would be heavily monitored. Not that your addressing the current presidential run, but, to date, no investigation has shown that Trump had any collusion with Russia and Russia had absolutely no effect on the Electoral College. Those are hand written ballots and signed by the Electoral College, so he won by the current established method of presidential election. If the public wants the Electoral College eliminated in favor of an election by popular vote alone, a 60% majority would have to make that happen to change the Constitution.

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?

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.