Dems Are Stalling, Recount Will Not Be Completed, WISCONSIN WILL FORFEIT TRUMP VOTES

[FA_Q2]

Under federal rules they can. Under many state rules they can as well. Only those states that actually have laws against faithless electors is that not kosher and if I am not mistaken most of those electors can vote how they want as well. They just have consequences when they cast that vote.

What you are trying to convince me is that a state could (in fact) carry more districts clearly choosing a democrat candidate, but the electorate is not bound at all by the results those voting districts carry. In fact, Constitutionally, they are free to simply give their states' electorates to the Republican candidate, if that's what they [the electorate] would rather do as their OWN decision.

I don't see any clear evidence of that in the Constitution, with any federal law that you have provided, or with regard to how the founders had established the electoral college in of itself.

Then explain why this very thing has happened multiple times in the past.

Again, you have to show evidence of where this is allowed under Federal law or under our. Constitution. I already stated my case for the electoral college process, listing where and stating verbatim what the Constitution says. I need more than "the federal law allows" or "it's stated in several state laws".

You have to be able to back up your argument with those facts you claim are there.

Yes, you cited the constitution but you are adding words to it that are not there. What you cited actually supports my argument, not yours. Further, I cited actual events where electors did chose differently than the vote went. Actual electors that did so without repercussion and those votes stood.

AGAIN, that is hard proof you are interpreting the passage incorrectly. If you were correct, those events could not have legally happened. They did. That is hard proof.

No, it was quoting verbatim under Article II Section 1 of the Constitution

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall SIGN and CERTIFY, and transmit sealed TO THE SEAT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President


You also did not provide the federal law that states electorates are not bound to what the vote reveals, where I have specifically cited sections of the Constitution

Yes, that verbatim passage upholds my argument - NOT yours.

Broken down:
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons,
------- The ELECTORS shall vote. Nowhere is there anything limiting who they vote for.
of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.
------- One of the electors shall reside out of state. This is to ensure the validity of the process.
And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each;
------- And here is where you are failing to understand the amendment. Nowhere has there been a reference of the vote of the state or its process. The ELECTORS voted
-------(according to the first sentence) and the ELECTOR'S votes are counted. The votes in the state election are not mentioned even once. You have been assuming
-------that the list of votes comes from the state election. That is NEVER STATED. What is stated is that the electors themselves voted.

And the rest covers how the vote itself is certified. Notice, again, that the voting process within the state is not mentioned in this paragraph. That is because the vote within the state has nothing to do with the process of the electors actually voting. They are not beholden to the state at all by the feds. You keep asking for a federal law - the federal law is right there,. The very amendment does not restrict the electors votes. They are free to cast a vote for whoever they please. Now, find a federal law or constitutional statement that says the electors are required to vote for a specific candidate.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

What you are trying to convince me is that a state could (in fact) carry more districts clearly choosing a democrat candidate, but the electorate is not bound at all by the results those voting districts carry. In fact, Constitutionally, they are free to simply give their states' electorates to the Republican candidate, if that's what they [the electorate] would rather do as their OWN decision.

I don't see any clear evidence of that in the Constitution, with any federal law that you have provided, or with regard to how the founders had established the electoral college in of itself.

Then explain why this very thing has happened multiple times in the past.

Again, you have to show evidence of where this is allowed under Federal law or under our. Constitution. I already stated my case for the electoral college process, listing where and stating verbatim what the Constitution says. I need more than "the federal law allows" or "it's stated in several state laws".

You have to be able to back up your argument with those facts you claim are there.

Yes, you cited the constitution but you are adding words to it that are not there. What you cited actually supports my argument, not yours. Further, I cited actual events where electors did chose differently than the vote went. Actual electors that did so without repercussion and those votes stood.

AGAIN, that is hard proof you are interpreting the passage incorrectly. If you were correct, those events could not have legally happened. They did. That is hard proof.

No, it was quoting verbatim under Article II Section 1 of the Constitution

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall SIGN and CERTIFY, and transmit sealed TO THE SEAT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President


You also did not provide the federal law that states electorates are not bound to what the vote reveals, where I have specifically cited sections of the Constitution

Yes, that verbatim passage upholds my argument - NOT yours.

Broken down:
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons,
------- The ELECTORS shall vote. Nowhere is there anything limiting who they vote for.
of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.
------- One of the electors shall reside out of state. This is to ensure the validity of the process.
And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each;
------- And here is where you are failing to understand the amendment. Nowhere has there been a reference of the vote of the state or its process. The ELECTORS voted
-------(according to the first sentence) and the ELECTOR'S votes are counted. The votes in the state election are not mentioned even once. You have been assuming
-------that the list of votes comes from the state election. That is NEVER STATED. What is stated is that the electors themselves voted.

And the rest covers how the vote itself is certified. Notice, again, that the voting process within the state is not mentioned in this paragraph. That is because the vote within the state has nothing to do with the process of the electors actually voting. They are not beholden to the state at all by the feds. You keep asking for a federal law - the federal law is right there,. The very amendment does not restrict the electors votes. They are free to cast a vote for whoever they please. Now, find a federal law or constitutional statement that says the electors are required to vote for a specific candidate.

Now your the one who is adding your own interpreted words to the amendment, doing the very thing you have previously accused me of doing. Congratulations on making yourself a hypocrite.

I have cited (under Article II Sectrion 1) that the state electorate MUST certify the actual voting count from the voting districts of that state that SHOW the voting count results of each candidate running for the office. It is not written anywhere under that Article that the electorate has any authority to make his own decision contrary to those voting results. You have NOT proven that.

Why don't you simply show me this Federal law you want to keep citing, that specifically gives the electorate that right to vote contrary to what the voting results of all these individual state districts reveals. Are you incapable of showing me where YOUR source is that you are basing your argument?

Where is your federal law link? Simply show me your source instead of simply adding your own interpretive words into a constitutional Article. I want to see this Federal Law you are referencing from in your next response.


FACT - When it comes to the electoral college, the Constitution only gives two groups of individuals the authority to cast their OWN voting choice on who will be President and Vice President, and that is when no candidate is able to reach an electoral count of 270. No other place in the Constitution is it written of any other group (outside of the people who voted in their respective state districts in a Presidential election ) that is granted specific authority to make their OWN decision on who THEY prefer to see as President of the United States. The Constitutional evidence is not in your favor.

 

[Pogo]

Then explain why this very thing has happened multiple times in the past.

Again, you have to show evidence of where this is allowed under Federal law or under our. Constitution. I already stated my case for the electoral college process, listing where and stating verbatim what the Constitution says. I need more than "the federal law allows" or "it's stated in several state laws".

You have to be able to back up your argument with those facts you claim are there.

Yes, you cited the constitution but you are adding words to it that are not there. What you cited actually supports my argument, not yours. Further, I cited actual events where electors did chose differently than the vote went. Actual electors that did so without repercussion and those votes stood.

AGAIN, that is hard proof you are interpreting the passage incorrectly. If you were correct, those events could not have legally happened. They did. That is hard proof.

No, it was quoting verbatim under Article II Section 1 of the Constitution

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall SIGN and CERTIFY, and transmit sealed TO THE SEAT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President


You also did not provide the federal law that states electorates are not bound to what the vote reveals, where I have specifically cited sections of the Constitution

Yes, that verbatim passage upholds my argument - NOT yours.

Broken down:
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons,
------- The ELECTORS shall vote. Nowhere is there anything limiting who they vote for.
of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.
------- One of the electors shall reside out of state. This is to ensure the validity of the process.
And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each;
------- And here is where you are failing to understand the amendment. Nowhere has there been a reference of the vote of the state or its process. The ELECTORS voted
-------(according to the first sentence) and the ELECTOR'S votes are counted. The votes in the state election are not mentioned even once. You have been assuming
-------that the list of votes comes from the state election. That is NEVER STATED. What is stated is that the electors themselves voted.

And the rest covers how the vote itself is certified. Notice, again, that the voting process within the state is not mentioned in this paragraph. That is because the vote within the state has nothing to do with the process of the electors actually voting. They are not beholden to the state at all by the feds. You keep asking for a federal law - the federal law is right there,. The very amendment does not restrict the electors votes. They are free to cast a vote for whoever they please. Now, find a federal law or constitutional statement that says the electors are required to vote for a specific candidate.

Now your the one who is adding your own interpreted words to the amendment, doing the very thing you have previously accused me of doing. Congratulations on making yourself a hypocrite.

I have cited (under Article II Sectrion 1) that the state electorate MUST certify the actual voting count from the voting districts of that state that SHOW the voting count results of each candidate running for the office. It is not written anywhere under that Article that the electorate has any authority to make his own decision contrary to those voting results. You have NOT proven that.

Why don't you simply show me this Federal law you want to keep citing, that specifically gives the electorate that right to vote contrary to what the voting results of all these individual state districts reveals. Are you incapable of showing me where YOUR source is that you are basing your argument?

Where is your federal law link? Simply show me your source instead of simply adding your own interpretive words into a constitutional Article. I want to see this Federal Law you are referencing from in your next response.


FACT - When it comes to the electoral college, the Constitution only gives two groups of individuals the authority to cast their OWN voting choice on who will be President and Vice President, and that is when no candidate is able to reach an electoral count of 270. No other place in the Constitution is it written of any other group (outside of the people who voted in their respective state districts in a Presidential election ) that is granted specific authority to make their OWN decision on who THEY prefer to see as President of the United States. The Constitutional evidence is not in your favor.

Are you like drinking cleaning products or something? Why would there be a federal law specifically giving the "electorate" (which would have to mean "Elector" to even get through the sentence) a right to vote ANY way at all?

Learn your terms first of all -- the "electorate" is the body of voters in the public; the "Elector" is the specific individual, one of a set number, who functions within the Electoral College.

There is *NO* -- ZERO -- Constitutional requirement anywhere for any state to even hold an election, let alone to certify what the results of it are. Many states in many years have duly submitted their Electoral vote for the Presidency, without having held any public election at all. South Carolina was still doing it that way up to the Civil War. Colorado did it in 1876 when they decided it was too much trouble to hold an election.

So yes, the Electors can and do vote for who they see fit, including, as in 1960, people who weren't even running for the office. Holy shit man, crack a history book.

 

[FA_Q2]

Then explain why this very thing has happened multiple times in the past.

Again, you have to show evidence of where this is allowed under Federal law or under our. Constitution. I already stated my case for the electoral college process, listing where and stating verbatim what the Constitution says. I need more than "the federal law allows" or "it's stated in several state laws".

You have to be able to back up your argument with those facts you claim are there.

Yes, you cited the constitution but you are adding words to it that are not there. What you cited actually supports my argument, not yours. Further, I cited actual events where electors did chose differently than the vote went. Actual electors that did so without repercussion and those votes stood.

AGAIN, that is hard proof you are interpreting the passage incorrectly. If you were correct, those events could not have legally happened. They did. That is hard proof.

No, it was quoting verbatim under Article II Section 1 of the Constitution

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall SIGN and CERTIFY, and transmit sealed TO THE SEAT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President


You also did not provide the federal law that states electorates are not bound to what the vote reveals, where I have specifically cited sections of the Constitution

Yes, that verbatim passage upholds my argument - NOT yours.

Broken down:
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons,
------- The ELECTORS shall vote. Nowhere is there anything limiting who they vote for.
of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.
------- One of the electors shall reside out of state. This is to ensure the validity of the process.
And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each;
------- And here is where you are failing to understand the amendment. Nowhere has there been a reference of the vote of the state or its process. The ELECTORS voted
-------(according to the first sentence) and the ELECTOR'S votes are counted. The votes in the state election are not mentioned even once. You have been assuming
-------that the list of votes comes from the state election. That is NEVER STATED. What is stated is that the electors themselves voted.

And the rest covers how the vote itself is certified. Notice, again, that the voting process within the state is not mentioned in this paragraph. That is because the vote within the state has nothing to do with the process of the electors actually voting. They are not beholden to the state at all by the feds. You keep asking for a federal law - the federal law is right there,. The very amendment does not restrict the electors votes. They are free to cast a vote for whoever they please. Now, find a federal law or constitutional statement that says the electors are required to vote for a specific candidate.

Now your the one who is adding your own interpreted words to the amendment, doing the very thing you have previously accused me of doing. Congratulations on making yourself a hypocrite.

I have cited (under Article II Sectrion 1) that the state electorate MUST certify the actual voting count from the voting districts of that state that SHOW the voting count results of each candidate running for the office. It is not written anywhere under that Article that the electorate has any authority to make his own decision contrary to those voting results. You have NOT proven that.

I added nothing. You just added the term electorate which does not exist in article cited - Elector does. Nowhere does the section hint that the vote of the people in the states even exists let alone hold the electors to that outcome. It DIRECTLY states that the electors will vote by ballot. The votes of the ELECTORS. Period. That is in plain english and it does not say what you want it to say.

Again, I have shown historical fact with electors voting for who they want against the actual vote in their respective states and you have directly avoided dealing with that. This is because it flatly disproves your claim. DEAL WITH THAT FACT. Explain how faithless electors can and do exist (and there are even some that are going to do so this election). Unless you can fit the existance of faithless electors into your interpretation there is no way to square what you think with reality.

Why don't you simply show me this Federal law you want to keep citing, that specifically gives the electorate that right to vote contrary to what the voting results of all these individual state districts reveals. Are you incapable of showing me where YOUR source is that you are basing your argument?

Where is your federal law link? Simply show me your source instead of simply adding your own interpretive words into a constitutional Article. I want to see this Federal Law you are referencing from in your next response.

This has been addressed. I am not revisiting your straw man in your efforts to ignore what has actually happened.

As shown above I have only used the exact words of the constitution itself and explained sentence by sentence what those words mean. You have avoided doing so and added entire concepts into the constitution that are not there.

FACT - When it comes to the electoral college, the Constitution only gives two groups of individuals the authority to cast their OWN voting choice on who will be President and Vice President, and that is when no candidate is able to reach an electoral count of 270. No other place in the Constitution is it written of any other group (outside of the people who voted in their respective state districts in a Presidential election ) that is granted specific authority to make their OWN decision on who THEY prefer to see as President of the United States. The Constitutional evidence is not in your favor.

Considering that the constitution does not lay out state voting whatsoever, your statement is not even close to a fact.

 

[HenryBHough]

LMAO you and your ilk are powerless, Trump destroyed Hillary and cut your balls off. You will sit in the back while the GOP House, Senate, and White House rule with an iron fist.

"Balls"?

Sorry counselor. Implies facts not currently in evidence.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Again, you have to show evidence of where this is allowed under Federal law or under our. Constitution. I already stated my case for the electoral college process, listing where and stating verbatim what the Constitution says. I need more than "the federal law allows" or "it's stated in several state laws".

You have to be able to back up your argument with those facts you claim are there.

Yes, you cited the constitution but you are adding words to it that are not there. What you cited actually supports my argument, not yours. Further, I cited actual events where electors did chose differently than the vote went. Actual electors that did so without repercussion and those votes stood.

AGAIN, that is hard proof you are interpreting the passage incorrectly. If you were correct, those events could not have legally happened. They did. That is hard proof.

No, it was quoting verbatim under Article II Section 1 of the Constitution

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall SIGN and CERTIFY, and transmit sealed TO THE SEAT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President


You also did not provide the federal law that states electorates are not bound to what the vote reveals, where I have specifically cited sections of the Constitution

Yes, that verbatim passage upholds my argument - NOT yours.

Broken down:
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons,
------- The ELECTORS shall vote. Nowhere is there anything limiting who they vote for.
of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.
------- One of the electors shall reside out of state. This is to ensure the validity of the process.
And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each;
------- And here is where you are failing to understand the amendment. Nowhere has there been a reference of the vote of the state or its process. The ELECTORS voted
-------(according to the first sentence) and the ELECTOR'S votes are counted. The votes in the state election are not mentioned even once. You have been assuming
-------that the list of votes comes from the state election. That is NEVER STATED. What is stated is that the electors themselves voted.

And the rest covers how the vote itself is certified. Notice, again, that the voting process within the state is not mentioned in this paragraph. That is because the vote within the state has nothing to do with the process of the electors actually voting. They are not beholden to the state at all by the feds. You keep asking for a federal law - the federal law is right there,. The very amendment does not restrict the electors votes. They are free to cast a vote for whoever they please. Now, find a federal law or constitutional statement that says the electors are required to vote for a specific candidate.

Now your the one who is adding your own interpreted words to the amendment, doing the very thing you have previously accused me of doing. Congratulations on making yourself a hypocrite.

I have cited (under Article II Sectrion 1) that the state electorate MUST certify the actual voting count from the voting districts of that state that SHOW the voting count results of each candidate running for the office. It is not written anywhere under that Article that the electorate has any authority to make his own decision contrary to those voting results. You have NOT proven that.

I added nothing. You just added the term electorate which does not exist in article cited - Elector does. Nowhere does the section hint that the vote of the people in the states even exists let alone hold the electors to that outcome. It DIRECTLY states that the electors will vote by ballot. The votes of the ELECTORS. Period. That is in plain english and it does not say what you want it to say.

Again, I have shown historical fact with electors voting for who they want against the actual vote in their respective states and you have directly avoided dealing with that. This is because it flatly disproves your claim. DEAL WITH THAT FACT. Explain how faithless electors can and do exist (and there are even some that are going to do so this election). Unless you can fit the existance of faithless electors into your interpretation there is no way to square what you think with reality.

Why don't you simply show me this Federal law you want to keep citing, that specifically gives the electorate that right to vote contrary to what the voting results of all these individual state districts reveals. Are you incapable of showing me where YOUR source is that you are basing your argument?

Where is your federal law link? Simply show me your source instead of simply adding your own interpretive words into a constitutional Article. I want to see this Federal Law you are referencing from in your next response.

This has been addressed. I am not revisiting your straw man in your efforts to ignore what has actually happened.

As shown above I have only used the exact words of the constitution itself and explained sentence by sentence what those words mean. You have avoided doing so and added entire concepts into the constitution that are not there.

FACT - When it comes to the electoral college, the Constitution only gives two groups of individuals the authority to cast their OWN voting choice on who will be President and Vice President, and that is when no candidate is able to reach an electoral count of 270. No other place in the Constitution is it written of any other group (outside of the people who voted in their respective state districts in a Presidential election ) that is granted specific authority to make their OWN decision on who THEY prefer to see as President of the United States. The Constitutional evidence is not in your favor.

Considering that the constitution does not lay out state voting whatsoever, your statement is not even close to a fact.

No, I did not add any terms to the Article to which I cited.


An electorate awards a presidential candidate based on the votes counting results in those state congressional districts. Maine and. Nebraska have chosen to split up how it awards it electorates, but it's still based on the voting count results of those candidates running for office. You will NOT find all of Maine's voting districts showing a count weight heavily republican in its results and the state electorates make their OWN choice and award some of the electorates to the Democrat candidate because they happen to feel that the Democrat candidate would make a better president.

If you honestly believe that's how electorates operate WITHOUT providing any links to prove your argument, you are evidently drinking some serious Kool-aid my friend.

Regardless if the state separates their electorates by districts as Maine and Nebraska have done, or whether they award all the states electorates as a whole, it's still based on the candidate that has accumulated the most votes in each of those state districts. A state could decided to divide its electorates by state districts and the candidate must have achievered the most votes in those particular assigned districts to be awarded their electorates. A state could choose winner takes all, in which case a state could award ALL its electorates based on which candidate has the highest count from among its state districts. In either case the state awards its electorates based on the voting counts of each district.

What you will NOT find is a state ( like Pennsylvania, California, Florida ) where ALL the state district count favores one particular party candidate and (as you have argued in the electorates OWN freedom of choice) award their electorate to the opposing party because they "feel based on their OWN decision that the state vote counts are irrelevant and they will simply CHOOSE who they want to best represent the country as president."


Why even waste time undergoing state recounts if you honestly believe electorates don't base their decision on the state's voting districts, but can simply decide for themselves? A decision that's not dependent upon the voters' chosen candidate, as the electorate themselves can choose the candidate they would rather see as president.


That is not how electorates work, and you have not provided any documentation of linked resourced facts that show an electorate can simply toss all the voting results aside among their own state districts and simply make their OWN decision based on who the ELECTORATE (and NOT the voters of those state districts) have decided should be president. If your not going to supply linked researched facts that supports this particular view of yours above, then stop wasting my time.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, you cited the constitution but you are adding words to it that are not there. What you cited actually supports my argument, not yours. Further, I cited actual events where electors did chose differently than the vote went. Actual electors that did so without repercussion and those votes stood.

AGAIN, that is hard proof you are interpreting the passage incorrectly. If you were correct, those events could not have legally happened. They did. That is hard proof.

No, it was quoting verbatim under Article II Section 1 of the Constitution

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall SIGN and CERTIFY, and transmit sealed TO THE SEAT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President


You also did not provide the federal law that states electorates are not bound to what the vote reveals, where I have specifically cited sections of the Constitution

Yes, that verbatim passage upholds my argument - NOT yours.

Broken down:
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons,
------- The ELECTORS shall vote. Nowhere is there anything limiting who they vote for.
of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.
------- One of the electors shall reside out of state. This is to ensure the validity of the process.
And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each;
------- And here is where you are failing to understand the amendment. Nowhere has there been a reference of the vote of the state or its process. The ELECTORS voted
-------(according to the first sentence) and the ELECTOR'S votes are counted. The votes in the state election are not mentioned even once. You have been assuming
-------that the list of votes comes from the state election. That is NEVER STATED. What is stated is that the electors themselves voted.

And the rest covers how the vote itself is certified. Notice, again, that the voting process within the state is not mentioned in this paragraph. That is because the vote within the state has nothing to do with the process of the electors actually voting. They are not beholden to the state at all by the feds. You keep asking for a federal law - the federal law is right there,. The very amendment does not restrict the electors votes. They are free to cast a vote for whoever they please. Now, find a federal law or constitutional statement that says the electors are required to vote for a specific candidate.

Now your the one who is adding your own interpreted words to the amendment, doing the very thing you have previously accused me of doing. Congratulations on making yourself a hypocrite.

I have cited (under Article II Sectrion 1) that the state electorate MUST certify the actual voting count from the voting districts of that state that SHOW the voting count results of each candidate running for the office. It is not written anywhere under that Article that the electorate has any authority to make his own decision contrary to those voting results. You have NOT proven that.

I added nothing. You just added the term electorate which does not exist in article cited - Elector does. Nowhere does the section hint that the vote of the people in the states even exists let alone hold the electors to that outcome. It DIRECTLY states that the electors will vote by ballot. The votes of the ELECTORS. Period. That is in plain english and it does not say what you want it to say.

Again, I have shown historical fact with electors voting for who they want against the actual vote in their respective states and you have directly avoided dealing with that. This is because it flatly disproves your claim. DEAL WITH THAT FACT. Explain how faithless electors can and do exist (and there are even some that are going to do so this election). Unless you can fit the existance of faithless electors into your interpretation there is no way to square what you think with reality.

Why don't you simply show me this Federal law you want to keep citing, that specifically gives the electorate that right to vote contrary to what the voting results of all these individual state districts reveals. Are you incapable of showing me where YOUR source is that you are basing your argument?

Where is your federal law link? Simply show me your source instead of simply adding your own interpretive words into a constitutional Article. I want to see this Federal Law you are referencing from in your next response.

This has been addressed. I am not revisiting your straw man in your efforts to ignore what has actually happened.

As shown above I have only used the exact words of the constitution itself and explained sentence by sentence what those words mean. You have avoided doing so and added entire concepts into the constitution that are not there.

FACT - When it comes to the electoral college, the Constitution only gives two groups of individuals the authority to cast their OWN voting choice on who will be President and Vice President, and that is when no candidate is able to reach an electoral count of 270. No other place in the Constitution is it written of any other group (outside of the people who voted in their respective state districts in a Presidential election ) that is granted specific authority to make their OWN decision on who THEY prefer to see as President of the United States. The Constitutional evidence is not in your favor.

Considering that the constitution does not lay out state voting whatsoever, your statement is not even close to a fact.

No, I did not add any terms to the Article to which I cited.


An electorate awards a presidential candidate based on the votes counting results in those state congressional districts. Maine and. Nebraska have chosen to split up how it awards it electorates, but /snip

Are you so abjectly incapable of admitting your argument is a crock of shit that you have to go on intentionally misusing the word electorate? What, are we all supposed to pity you that you were working on a definition you didn't understand and therefore you get off the hook?

You're pathetic dood.

Electorate

[ih-lek-ter-it]

• Examples
• Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1. the body of persons entitled to vote in an election.
2.the dignity or territory of an Elector of the Holy Roman Empire.

SMFH

 

[mudwhistle]

For some reason I dislike candidates that cheat....and are constantly exploring methods to screw the voters out of their vote.

Then you should be in your car driving to WI to volunteer to help count the votes.

Sorry, I'd end up beating the crap out of some liberals. They wouldn't let me help anyway.

So you would resort to assault, just because you can't comprehend that this entire thread is based on a false premise huh.

Isn't that revealing.

This thread has dick to do with me reacting to assholes who haven't been taught proper manners.
Most likely because they've been pampered by over indulgent parents all their lives.
Stuck up snobbish assholes like yourself.

 

[Lewdog]

For some reason I dislike candidates that cheat....and are constantly exploring methods to screw the voters out of their vote.

Then you should be in your car driving to WI to volunteer to help count the votes.

Sorry, I'd end up beating the crap out of some liberals. They wouldn't let me help anyway.

So you would resort to assault, just because you can't comprehend that this entire thread is based on a false premise huh.

Isn't that revealing.

This thread has dick to do with me reacting to assholes who haven't been taught proper manners.
Most likely because they've been pampered by over indulgent parents all their lives.

Right... as always you have no clue.

 

[mudwhistle]

For some reason I dislike candidates that cheat....and are constantly exploring methods to screw the voters out of their vote.

Then you should be in your car driving to WI to volunteer to help count the votes.

Sorry, I'd end up beating the crap out of some liberals. They wouldn't let me help anyway.

So you would resort to assault, just because you can't comprehend that this entire thread is based on a false premise huh.

Isn't that revealing.

This thread has dick to do with me reacting to assholes who haven't been taught proper manners.
Most likely because they've been pampered by over indulgent parents all their lives.

Right... as always you have no clue.

Got your asses handed to you and now all you people have is hollow insults.

I consider snobs like you and Mr Sourpuss a waste of bandwidth.

 

[Lewdog]

Then you should be in your car driving to WI to volunteer to help count the votes.

Sorry, I'd end up beating the crap out of some liberals. They wouldn't let me help anyway.

So you would resort to assault, just because you can't comprehend that this entire thread is based on a false premise huh.

Isn't that revealing.

This thread has dick to do with me reacting to assholes who haven't been taught proper manners.
Most likely because they've been pampered by over indulgent parents all their lives.

Right... as always you have no clue.

Got your asses handed to you and now all you people have is hollow insults.

I consider snobs like you and Mr Sourpuss a waste of bandwidth.

Seeing as how I didn't vote for Hillary, I wouldn't exactly say I got my ass handed to me. Hollow insults? You haven't even seen insults yet.

Do you even live in the U.S.?

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes, you cited the constitution but you are adding words to it that are not there. What you cited actually supports my argument, not yours. Further, I cited actual events where electors did chose differently than the vote went. Actual electors that did so without repercussion and those votes stood.

AGAIN, that is hard proof you are interpreting the passage incorrectly. If you were correct, those events could not have legally happened. They did. That is hard proof.

No, it was quoting verbatim under Article II Section 1 of the Constitution

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall SIGN and CERTIFY, and transmit sealed TO THE SEAT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President


You also did not provide the federal law that states electorates are not bound to what the vote reveals, where I have specifically cited sections of the Constitution

Yes, that verbatim passage upholds my argument - NOT yours.

Broken down:
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons,
------- The ELECTORS shall vote. Nowhere is there anything limiting who they vote for.
of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.
------- One of the electors shall reside out of state. This is to ensure the validity of the process.
And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each;
------- And here is where you are failing to understand the amendment. Nowhere has there been a reference of the vote of the state or its process. The ELECTORS voted
-------(according to the first sentence) and the ELECTOR'S votes are counted. The votes in the state election are not mentioned even once. You have been assuming
-------that the list of votes comes from the state election. That is NEVER STATED. What is stated is that the electors themselves voted.

And the rest covers how the vote itself is certified. Notice, again, that the voting process within the state is not mentioned in this paragraph. That is because the vote within the state has nothing to do with the process of the electors actually voting. They are not beholden to the state at all by the feds. You keep asking for a federal law - the federal law is right there,. The very amendment does not restrict the electors votes. They are free to cast a vote for whoever they please. Now, find a federal law or constitutional statement that says the electors are required to vote for a specific candidate.

Now your the one who is adding your own interpreted words to the amendment, doing the very thing you have previously accused me of doing. Congratulations on making yourself a hypocrite.

I have cited (under Article II Sectrion 1) that the state electorate MUST certify the actual voting count from the voting districts of that state that SHOW the voting count results of each candidate running for the office. It is not written anywhere under that Article that the electorate has any authority to make his own decision contrary to those voting results. You have NOT proven that.

I added nothing. You just added the term electorate which does not exist in article cited - Elector does. Nowhere does the section hint that the vote of the people in the states even exists let alone hold the electors to that outcome. It DIRECTLY states that the electors will vote by ballot. The votes of the ELECTORS. Period. That is in plain english and it does not say what you want it to say.

Again, I have shown historical fact with electors voting for who they want against the actual vote in their respective states and you have directly avoided dealing with that. This is because it flatly disproves your claim. DEAL WITH THAT FACT. Explain how faithless electors can and do exist (and there are even some that are going to do so this election). Unless you can fit the existance of faithless electors into your interpretation there is no way to square what you think with reality.

Why don't you simply show me this Federal law you want to keep citing, that specifically gives the electorate that right to vote contrary to what the voting results of all these individual state districts reveals. Are you incapable of showing me where YOUR source is that you are basing your argument?

Where is your federal law link? Simply show me your source instead of simply adding your own interpretive words into a constitutional Article. I want to see this Federal Law you are referencing from in your next response.

This has been addressed. I am not revisiting your straw man in your efforts to ignore what has actually happened.

As shown above I have only used the exact words of the constitution itself and explained sentence by sentence what those words mean. You have avoided doing so and added entire concepts into the constitution that are not there.

FACT - When it comes to the electoral college, the Constitution only gives two groups of individuals the authority to cast their OWN voting choice on who will be President and Vice President, and that is when no candidate is able to reach an electoral count of 270. No other place in the Constitution is it written of any other group (outside of the people who voted in their respective state districts in a Presidential election ) that is granted specific authority to make their OWN decision on who THEY prefer to see as President of the United States. The Constitutional evidence is not in your favor.

Considering that the constitution does not lay out state voting whatsoever, your statement is not even close to a fact.

No, I did not add any terms to the Article to which I cited.


An electorate awards a presidential candidate based on the votes counting results in those state congressional districts. Maine and. Nebraska have chosen to split up how it awards it electorates, but it's still based on the voting count results of those candidates running for office. You will NOT find all of Maine's voting districts showing a count weight heavily republican in its results and the state electorates make their OWN choice and award some of the electorates to the Democrat candidate because they happen to feel that the Democrat candidate would make a better president.

If you honestly believe that's how electorates operate WITHOUT providing any links to prove your argument, you are evidently drinking some serious Kool-aid my friend.

Regardless if the state separates their electorates by districts as Maine and Nebraska have done, or whether they award all the states electorates as a whole, it's still based on the candidate that has accumulated the most votes in each of those state districts. A state could decided to divide its electorates by state districts and the candidate must have achievered the most votes in those particular assigned districts to be awarded their electorates. A state could choose winner takes all, in which case a state could award ALL its electorates based on which candidate has the highest count from among its state districts. In either case the state awards its electorates based on the voting counts of each district.

What you will NOT find is a state ( like Pennsylvania, California, Florida ) where ALL the state district count favores one particular party candidate and (as you have argued in the electorates OWN freedom of choice) award their electorate to the opposing party because they "feel based on their OWN decision that the state vote counts are irrelevant and they will simply CHOOSE who they want to best represent the country as president."


Why even waste time undergoing state recounts if you honestly believe electorates don't base their decision on the state's voting districts, but can simply decide for themselves? A decision that's not dependent upon the voters' chosen candidate, as the electorate themselves can choose the candidate they would rather see as president.


That is not how electorates work, and you have not provided any documentation of linked resourced facts that show an electorate can simply toss all the voting results aside among their own state districts and simply make their OWN decision based on who the ELECTORATE (and NOT the voters of those state districts) have decided should be president. If your not going to supply linked researched facts that supports this particular view of yours above, then stop wasting my time.

Well, that is that then.

I have pointed out where you failed to understand the constitution. Gone over each individual line of the article that proves you are incorrect. Provided historical examples where what I have claim can happen actually did happen. Linked to those examples as well as the basic definitions of the words in the constitution. Provided real world examples of what I have been stating that are going to happen THIS election cycle. All of this sourced and proven.

You have quoted a single article and then demanded that it does not say what it does. You have ignored all of the evidence that has been brought up. You have steadfastly ignored Pogo who has brought even more evidence of solid proof that what you are saying is illegal has actually happened and has been upheld. Then you really have the gall to demand links supporting my point. Links that I have supplied by the way. Links that you refuse to supply of your own and links that you will not supply that shows the historical facts prove you are incorrect not happening as I have stated they happened (and backed up).

You are not interested in a debate here - just interested in demanding you are correct when that clearly is not the case. Continue on with a complete misunderstanding of the constitution, I no longer have the time to educate you on facts you simply cannot recognize.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

No, it was quoting verbatim under Article II Section 1 of the Constitution

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall SIGN and CERTIFY, and transmit sealed TO THE SEAT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President


You also did not provide the federal law that states electorates are not bound to what the vote reveals, where I have specifically cited sections of the Constitution

Yes, that verbatim passage upholds my argument - NOT yours.

Broken down:
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons,
------- The ELECTORS shall vote. Nowhere is there anything limiting who they vote for.
of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.
------- One of the electors shall reside out of state. This is to ensure the validity of the process.
And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each;
------- And here is where you are failing to understand the amendment. Nowhere has there been a reference of the vote of the state or its process. The ELECTORS voted
-------(according to the first sentence) and the ELECTOR'S votes are counted. The votes in the state election are not mentioned even once. You have been assuming
-------that the list of votes comes from the state election. That is NEVER STATED. What is stated is that the electors themselves voted.

And the rest covers how the vote itself is certified. Notice, again, that the voting process within the state is not mentioned in this paragraph. That is because the vote within the state has nothing to do with the process of the electors actually voting. They are not beholden to the state at all by the feds. You keep asking for a federal law - the federal law is right there,. The very amendment does not restrict the electors votes. They are free to cast a vote for whoever they please. Now, find a federal law or constitutional statement that says the electors are required to vote for a specific candidate.

Now your the one who is adding your own interpreted words to the amendment, doing the very thing you have previously accused me of doing. Congratulations on making yourself a hypocrite.

I have cited (under Article II Sectrion 1) that the state electorate MUST certify the actual voting count from the voting districts of that state that SHOW the voting count results of each candidate running for the office. It is not written anywhere under that Article that the electorate has any authority to make his own decision contrary to those voting results. You have NOT proven that.

I added nothing. You just added the term electorate which does not exist in article cited - Elector does. Nowhere does the section hint that the vote of the people in the states even exists let alone hold the electors to that outcome. It DIRECTLY states that the electors will vote by ballot. The votes of the ELECTORS. Period. That is in plain english and it does not say what you want it to say.

Again, I have shown historical fact with electors voting for who they want against the actual vote in their respective states and you have directly avoided dealing with that. This is because it flatly disproves your claim. DEAL WITH THAT FACT. Explain how faithless electors can and do exist (and there are even some that are going to do so this election). Unless you can fit the existance of faithless electors into your interpretation there is no way to square what you think with reality.

Why don't you simply show me this Federal law you want to keep citing, that specifically gives the electorate that right to vote contrary to what the voting results of all these individual state districts reveals. Are you incapable of showing me where YOUR source is that you are basing your argument?

Where is your federal law link? Simply show me your source instead of simply adding your own interpretive words into a constitutional Article. I want to see this Federal Law you are referencing from in your next response.

This has been addressed. I am not revisiting your straw man in your efforts to ignore what has actually happened.

As shown above I have only used the exact words of the constitution itself and explained sentence by sentence what those words mean. You have avoided doing so and added entire concepts into the constitution that are not there.

FACT - When it comes to the electoral college, the Constitution only gives two groups of individuals the authority to cast their OWN voting choice on who will be President and Vice President, and that is when no candidate is able to reach an electoral count of 270. No other place in the Constitution is it written of any other group (outside of the people who voted in their respective state districts in a Presidential election ) that is granted specific authority to make their OWN decision on who THEY prefer to see as President of the United States. The Constitutional evidence is not in your favor.

Considering that the constitution does not lay out state voting whatsoever, your statement is not even close to a fact.

No, I did not add any terms to the Article to which I cited.


An electorate awards a presidential candidate based on the votes counting results in those state congressional districts. Maine and. Nebraska have chosen to split up how it awards it electorates, but it's still based on the voting count results of those candidates running for office. You will NOT find all of Maine's voting districts showing a count weight heavily republican in its results and the state electorates make their OWN choice and award some of the electorates to the Democrat candidate because they happen to feel that the Democrat candidate would make a better president.

If you honestly believe that's how electorates operate WITHOUT providing any links to prove your argument, you are evidently drinking some serious Kool-aid my friend.

Regardless if the state separates their electorates by districts as Maine and Nebraska have done, or whether they award all the states electorates as a whole, it's still based on the candidate that has accumulated the most votes in each of those state districts. A state could decided to divide its electorates by state districts and the candidate must have achievered the most votes in those particular assigned districts to be awarded their electorates. A state could choose winner takes all, in which case a state could award ALL its electorates based on which candidate has the highest count from among its state districts. In either case the state awards its electorates based on the voting counts of each district.

What you will NOT find is a state ( like Pennsylvania, California, Florida ) where ALL the state district count favores one particular party candidate and (as you have argued in the electorates OWN freedom of choice) award their electorate to the opposing party because they "feel based on their OWN decision that the state vote counts are irrelevant and they will simply CHOOSE who they want to best represent the country as president."


Why even waste time undergoing state recounts if you honestly believe electorates don't base their decision on the state's voting districts, but can simply decide for themselves? A decision that's not dependent upon the voters' chosen candidate, as the electorate themselves can choose the candidate they would rather see as president.


That is not how electorates work, and you have not provided any documentation of linked resourced facts that show an electorate can simply toss all the voting results aside among their own state districts and simply make their OWN decision based on who the ELECTORATE (and NOT the voters of those state districts) have decided should be president. If your not going to supply linked researched facts that supports this particular view of yours above, then stop wasting my time.

Well, that is that then.

I have pointed out where you failed to understand the constitution. Gone over each individual line of the article that proves you are incorrect. Provided historical examples where what I have claim can happen actually did happen. Linked to those examples as well as the basic definitions of the words in the constitution. Provided real world examples of what I have been stating that are going to happen THIS election cycle. All of this sourced and proven.

You have quoted a single article and then demanded that it does not say what it does. You have ignored all of the evidence that has been brought up. You have steadfastly ignored Pogo who has brought even more evidence of solid proof that what you are saying is illegal has actually happened and has been upheld. Then you really have the gall to demand links supporting my point. Links that I have supplied by the way. Links that you refuse to supply of your own and links that you will not supply that shows the historical facts prove you are incorrect not happening as I have stated they happened (and backed up).

You are not interested in a debate here - just interested in demanding you are correct when that clearly is not the case. Continue on with a complete misunderstanding of the constitution, I no longer have the time to educate you on facts you simply cannot recognize.

The truth is, and I'm not misquoting you ... Your belief is that voters are somehow not being properly represented through the electoral college, then continually make statements that electorates can make their own decision for president regardless of how the voters in districts have decided.

You can't explain the need for voter recounts while you hold the belief that the state's electorates can vote who THEY want to see as president. Can you? Another hope in your argument

You have provided no Federal Law To which YOU stated backs up your view.

If you want to try and assume there is some historical evidence as if to say the states have rights in national affairs. Well, you may be unaware that state rights over imposing federal laws ended with the civil war

Dispute all you wan, you will again find Wisconsin can not and will not award the state's electoral votes contrary to what those state voting districts have decided.