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

[Pogo]

Not winning is not the same as being disenfrancised. Your vote counted in YOUR state.

"Not winning" is not the same as being disenfranchised, correct. Having one's vote tossed in the round file however, is. And that's how it works.

My vote "counted" in my state, only to the extent that it was not clear going in how the entire state population would settle. --- therefore I had a say in it. My friends and relatives in Texas and Massachusetts and Mississippi and California, didn't have that luxury. They were disenfranchised. Any or all of them could have voted with their state, against their state, or not voted at all, and the effect in all three cases would be exactly the same --- nothing.

That's what I call disenfranchised. It's arguably worse than not being allowed a vote at all --- "OK you can vote, but we're just gonna throw it out".

So once the votes were counted in my state it was resolved that the state's Electors will declare that "the people of North Carolina cast all 15 votes for Donald Rump" ------ which is absolute bullshit, and tosses into that same round file everybody who didn't vote that way, which is in the millions. That's disenfranchisement. We did not vote unanimously and it's nakedly insane to declare we did.

Now if the state's electors would say, "8 votes for Rump, 7 votes for Clinton" that would be actually counting the people's votes. But that's not how they do it.

If your state has a bigger population then YOUR state has more influence than a smaller state.

I'm not a "state". I'm a "people". And at no time in this election or any other did I confer with the entire population of my state to come to an agreement on how we would vote. That has never happened, anywhere ever.

This is not much different than stating a national popular vote disenfranchises voters because when one wins 51% of the vote and they are elected the other 49% were 'thrown out.'

I agree that the process we follow does disenfranchise voters that do not see a possibility that their votes will change the outcome (as in CA is certainly going Democrat and TX is certainly going Republican) but that is not the same as stating those votes do not count or are thrown out. Neither of those statements are true - they are counted and they are not thrown out.

It is disenfranchisement in the sense that every voter who did not vote as their state did, is deliberately misrepresented by their electors.

My state for example will, under the traditional system, cast all 15 of its EVs for Rump. I can guarantee you that the voters of this state did NOT unanimously vote for him. That's a gross misrepresentation. Were they voting a fair representation of this state's voter's wishes, they would cast 8 for the Republican and 7 for the Democrat.

Ever seen a football game that was a close match but one team prevailed 31-30? Well they don't report that score as "31 to nothing".

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Hillary is doing this in several states and it will cause civil war, but hillary has no choice. If trump is prez she's going to prison.

Jim Fucking Hoft. When will you cretins ever get it.

Diga me this Tonto --- why would Wisconsin, or any other state, be forced to forfeit their EVs? The Constitution doesn't care how any state picks their electors or how they instruct them to vote. The Constitution doesn't even prescribe a public election at all.

CONSTITUTION of the United States
amendment XII
The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists 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 for President, shall be the President

That does not say anything about forfeiting their vote.

There is nothing in the amendment that states electorals are allowed to make their own decisions contrary to the voting results of that state.

You posted it. It directly states they will name the person voted for as presedent and vice presedent. THEY vote for that person. There is nothing anywhere in the cited amendment that even mentions the popular vote in the state they come from or restricting their vote there.

It does state they are obligated to reliquish those electoral votes based on the results of the vote received in their state. Show me where in the Cinstitution it specifically says otherwise.

No, it does not. A vote in the state itself is not even required at all. Nowhere in the constitution, even to this day, is a vote for the president by the people required. Should a state decide to adjust their own law, they can elect the president by coin toss should they chose.

You are entirely misunderstanding what the point of the 12th amendment is - it addressed the problem of having electors cast 2 votes that ended up with a president and a vice president of different parties. Clearly, having Trump president and Kaine VP could cause major problems.

It specifically states in the United States Constitution how those electoral votes are decided, and those votes under that state certified.


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 [the electors of each state] 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


NO WHERE does it state those representing the electoral system of that state, can use their own discretion or judgment CONTRARY to what the number of votes reveal.

I suggest you take the time to read the Constitution again

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

This only proves they don't have much belief in democracy - something which we already knew.

Now, get ready to spell "President Trump".

Didn't you and your pals tell me about 100 times last week that we are NOT a democracy?

We aren't, we have a Republic system of government as clearly laid out in the U.S. Constitution

So? Republic and democracy can be the same thing.

The Constitution specifically gives a method that a presidential election is to be held, and it's not based on a democracy nationwide majority vote wins. No where is democracy even mentioned in the Constitution or our nation's pledge, to describe the chosen system of representation for our government.

----- which is why the conclusion that "Wisconsin will have to forfeit its electoral vote" is a non sequitur. Wisconsin can as FA_Q2 notes, flip a coin if it likes. It could run an internet poll. It could consult a ouija board. Any way it wants to. It does not require knowing what the vote count is, or even having a vote.

FALSE. The Constitution gives specific instruction regarding the total vote cast, and the electorals of that state's responsibility to certify that vote count.

 

[Freewill]

Not winning is not the same as being disenfrancised. Your vote counted in YOUR state.

"Not winning" is not the same as being disenfranchised, correct. Having one's vote tossed in the round file however, is. And that's how it works.

My vote "counted" in my state, only to the extent that it was not clear going in how the entire state population would settle. --- therefore I had a say in it. My friends and relatives in Texas and Massachusetts and Mississippi and California, didn't have that luxury. They were disenfranchised. Any or all of them could have voted with their state, against their state, or not voted at all, and the effect in all three cases would be exactly the same --- nothing.

That's what I call disenfranchised. It's arguably worse than not being allowed a vote at all --- "OK you can vote, but we're just gonna throw it out".

So once the votes were counted in my state it was resolved that the state's Electors will declare that "the people of North Carolina cast all 15 votes for Donald Rump" ------ which is absolute bullshit, and tosses into that same round file everybody who didn't vote that way, which is in the millions. That's disenfranchisement. We did not vote unanimously and it's nakedly insane to declare we did.

Now if the state's electors would say, "8 votes for Rump, 7 votes for Clinton" that would be actually counting the people's votes. But that's not how they do it.

If your state has a bigger population then YOUR state has more influence than a smaller state.

I'm not a "state". I'm a "people". And at no time in this election or any other did I confer with the entire population of my state to come to an agreement on how we would vote. That has never happened, anywhere ever.

This is not much different than stating a national popular vote disenfranchises voters because when one wins 51% of the vote and they are elected the other 49% were 'thrown out.'

I agree that the process we follow does disenfranchise voters that do not see a possibility that their votes will change the outcome (as in CA is certainly going Democrat and TX is certainly going Republican) but that is not the same as stating those votes do not count or are thrown out. Neither of those statements are true - they are counted and they are not thrown out.

It is disenfranchisement in the sense that every voter who did not vote as their state did, is deliberately misrepresented by their electors.

My state for example will, under the traditional system, cast all 15 of its EVs for Rump. I can guarantee you that the voters of this state did NOT unanimously vote for him. That's a gross misrepresentation. Were they voting a fair representation of this state's voter's wishes, they would cast 8 for the Republican and 7 for the Democrat.

Ever seen a football game that was a close match but one team prevailed 31-30? Well they don't report that score as "31 to nothing".

So let's say that it a national popularity contest. The majority of people didn't vote for Hillary, does that mean the majority are being disenfranchised?

 

[Norman]

Not winning is not the same as being disenfrancised. Your vote counted in YOUR state.

"Not winning" is not the same as being disenfranchised, correct. Having one's vote tossed in the round file however, is. And that's how it works.

My vote "counted" in my state, only to the extent that it was not clear going in how the entire state population would settle. --- therefore I had a say in it. My friends and relatives in Texas and Massachusetts and Mississippi and California, didn't have that luxury. They were disenfranchised. Any or all of them could have voted with their state, against their state, or not voted at all, and the effect in all three cases would be exactly the same --- nothing.

That's what I call disenfranchised. It's arguably worse than not being allowed a vote at all --- "OK you can vote, but we're just gonna throw it out".

So once the votes were counted in my state it was resolved that the state's Electors will declare that "the people of North Carolina cast all 15 votes for Donald Rump" ------ which is absolute bullshit, and tosses into that same round file everybody who didn't vote that way, which is in the millions. That's disenfranchisement. We did not vote unanimously and it's nakedly insane to declare we did.

Now if the state's electors would say, "8 votes for Rump, 7 votes for Clinton" that would be actually counting the people's votes. But that's not how they do it.

If your state has a bigger population then YOUR state has more influence than a smaller state.

I'm not a "state". I'm a "people". And at no time in this election or any other did I confer with the entire population of my state to come to an agreement on how we would vote. That has never happened, anywhere ever.

This is not much different than stating a national popular vote disenfranchises voters because when one wins 51% of the vote and they are elected the other 49% were 'thrown out.'

I agree that the process we follow does disenfranchise voters that do not see a possibility that their votes will change the outcome (as in CA is certainly going Democrat and TX is certainly going Republican) but that is not the same as stating those votes do not count or are thrown out. Neither of those statements are true - they are counted and they are not thrown out.

It is disenfranchisement in the sense that every voter who did not vote as their state did, is deliberately misrepresented by their electors.

My state for example will, under the traditional system, cast all 15 of its EVs for Rump. I can guarantee you that the voters of this state did NOT unanimously vote for him. That's a gross misrepresentation. Were they voting a fair representation of this state's voter's wishes, they would cast 8 for the Republican and 7 for the Democrat.

Ever seen a football game that was a close match but one team prevailed 31-30? Well they don't report that score as "31 to nothing".

If Hillary had won the electoral the vote, and Trump the popular vote, you would have the exact opposite opinion.


You see, there are plenty of justifications for BOTH of the systems. The only thing of interest of here is how these complete CLOWNS, butthurt IDIOTS, complain only because Trump won. That's the extent of their rationale.

 

[Pogo]

Not winning is not the same as being disenfrancised. Your vote counted in YOUR state.

"Not winning" is not the same as being disenfranchised, correct. Having one's vote tossed in the round file however, is. And that's how it works.

My vote "counted" in my state, only to the extent that it was not clear going in how the entire state population would settle. --- therefore I had a say in it. My friends and relatives in Texas and Massachusetts and Mississippi and California, didn't have that luxury. They were disenfranchised. Any or all of them could have voted with their state, against their state, or not voted at all, and the effect in all three cases would be exactly the same --- nothing.

That's what I call disenfranchised. It's arguably worse than not being allowed a vote at all --- "OK you can vote, but we're just gonna throw it out".

So once the votes were counted in my state it was resolved that the state's Electors will declare that "the people of North Carolina cast all 15 votes for Donald Rump" ------ which is absolute bullshit, and tosses into that same round file everybody who didn't vote that way, which is in the millions. That's disenfranchisement. We did not vote unanimously and it's nakedly insane to declare we did.

Now if the state's electors would say, "8 votes for Rump, 7 votes for Clinton" that would be actually counting the people's votes. But that's not how they do it.

If your state has a bigger population then YOUR state has more influence than a smaller state.

I'm not a "state". I'm a "people". And at no time in this election or any other did I confer with the entire population of my state to come to an agreement on how we would vote. That has never happened, anywhere ever.

This is not much different than stating a national popular vote disenfranchises voters because when one wins 51% of the vote and they are elected the other 49% were 'thrown out.'

I agree that the process we follow does disenfranchise voters that do not see a possibility that their votes will change the outcome (as in CA is certainly going Democrat and TX is certainly going Republican) but that is not the same as stating those votes do not count or are thrown out. Neither of those statements are true - they are counted and they are not thrown out.

It is disenfranchisement in the sense that every voter who did not vote as their state did, is deliberately misrepresented by their electors.

My state for example will, under the traditional system, cast all 15 of its EVs for Rump. I can guarantee you that the voters of this state did NOT unanimously vote for him. That's a gross misrepresentation. Were they voting a fair representation of this state's voter's wishes, they would cast 8 for the Republican and 7 for the Democrat.

Ever seen a football game that was a close match but one team prevailed 31-30? Well they don't report that score as "31 to nothing".

If Hillary had won the electoral the vote, and Trump the popular vote, you would have the exact opposite opinion.


You see, there are plenty of justifications for BOTH of the systems. The only thing of interest of here is how these complete CLOWNS, butthurt IDIOTS, complain only because Trump won. That's the extent of their rationale.

How tragic for your post that I'm already on record with these same sentiments for this entire campaign, going back to last year. Long before "Hillary" was the candidate. Ooooopsie.

Your speculation fallacies about what woulda/shoulda/coulda are just that. Fallacies.

 

[Pogo]

Didn't you and your pals tell me about 100 times last week that we are NOT a democracy?

We aren't, we have a Republic system of government as clearly laid out in the U.S. Constitution

So? Republic and democracy can be the same thing.

The Constitution specifically gives a method that a presidential election is to be held, and it's not based on a democracy nationwide majority vote wins. No where is democracy even mentioned in the Constitution or our nation's pledge, to describe the chosen system of representation for our government.

----- which is why the conclusion that "Wisconsin will have to forfeit its electoral vote" is a non sequitur. Wisconsin can as FA_Q2 notes, flip a coin if it likes. It could run an internet poll. It could consult a ouija board. Any way it wants to. It does not require knowing what the vote count is, or even having a vote.

FALSE. The Constitution gives specific instruction regarding the total vote cast, and the electorals of that state's responsibility to certify that vote count.

Does it now.
Where?

NO WHERE does it state those representing the electoral system of that state, can use their own discretion or judgment CONTRARY to what the number of votes reveal.

You're actually going on the Whirled Wide Web ---- which goes all over the world ---- and putting your name next to a blatant Argument from Ignorance, claiming that if the Constitution doesn't say they can't ignore a vote (that's three negatives if you're scoring at home, or even if you're by yourself) ---- that means not only can they not not-ignore said vote, but they specifically have to hold an election TO not-ignore?

Might want to take a remedial reading class.

Again, the Constitution says that the several states will designate electors who will transmit their votes. It says nothing of how that state chooses those electors whether it's by public vote or by counting the left feet of the first sixteen men to leave church, or by throwing darts at pictures o the wall.

 

[FA_Q2]

Not winning is not the same as being disenfrancised. Your vote counted in YOUR state.

"Not winning" is not the same as being disenfranchised, correct. Having one's vote tossed in the round file however, is. And that's how it works.

My vote "counted" in my state, only to the extent that it was not clear going in how the entire state population would settle. --- therefore I had a say in it. My friends and relatives in Texas and Massachusetts and Mississippi and California, didn't have that luxury. They were disenfranchised. Any or all of them could have voted with their state, against their state, or not voted at all, and the effect in all three cases would be exactly the same --- nothing.

That's what I call disenfranchised. It's arguably worse than not being allowed a vote at all --- "OK you can vote, but we're just gonna throw it out".

So once the votes were counted in my state it was resolved that the state's Electors will declare that "the people of North Carolina cast all 15 votes for Donald Rump" ------ which is absolute bullshit, and tosses into that same round file everybody who didn't vote that way, which is in the millions. That's disenfranchisement. We did not vote unanimously and it's nakedly insane to declare we did.

Now if the state's electors would say, "8 votes for Rump, 7 votes for Clinton" that would be actually counting the people's votes. But that's not how they do it.

If your state has a bigger population then YOUR state has more influence than a smaller state.

I'm not a "state". I'm a "people". And at no time in this election or any other did I confer with the entire population of my state to come to an agreement on how we would vote. That has never happened, anywhere ever.

This is not much different than stating a national popular vote disenfranchises voters because when one wins 51% of the vote and they are elected the other 49% were 'thrown out.'

I agree that the process we follow does disenfranchise voters that do not see a possibility that their votes will change the outcome (as in CA is certainly going Democrat and TX is certainly going Republican) but that is not the same as stating those votes do not count or are thrown out. Neither of those statements are true - they are counted and they are not thrown out.

It is disenfranchisement in the sense that every voter who did not vote as their state did, is deliberately misrepresented by their electors.

Not really. They are not misrepresented at all - the state is won by one of the candidates. Again, stating that they are misrepresented is the same as stating in a popular election that the 49% are misrepresented because the candidate that 51% voted for wins.

My state for example will, under the traditional system, cast all 15 of its EVs for Rump. I can guarantee you that the voters of this state did NOT unanimously vote for him. That's a gross misrepresentation. Were they voting a fair representation of this state's voter's wishes, they would cast 8 for the Republican and 7 for the Democrat.

Ever seen a football game that was a close match but one team prevailed 31-30? Well they don't report that score as "31 to nothing".

So one candidate wins the state. That does not misrepresent the voters.

 

[FA_Q2]

Jim Fucking Hoft. When will you cretins ever get it.

Diga me this Tonto --- why would Wisconsin, or any other state, be forced to forfeit their EVs? The Constitution doesn't care how any state picks their electors or how they instruct them to vote. The Constitution doesn't even prescribe a public election at all.

CONSTITUTION of the United States
amendment XII
The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists 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 for President, shall be the President

That does not say anything about forfeiting their vote.

There is nothing in the amendment that states electorals are allowed to make their own decisions contrary to the voting results of that state.

You posted it. It directly states they will name the person voted for as presedent and vice presedent. THEY vote for that person. There is nothing anywhere in the cited amendment that even mentions the popular vote in the state they come from or restricting their vote there.

It does state they are obligated to reliquish those electoral votes based on the results of the vote received in their state. Show me where in the Cinstitution it specifically says otherwise.

No, it does not. A vote in the state itself is not even required at all. Nowhere in the constitution, even to this day, is a vote for the president by the people required. Should a state decide to adjust their own law, they can elect the president by coin toss should they chose.

You are entirely misunderstanding what the point of the 12th amendment is - it addressed the problem of having electors cast 2 votes that ended up with a president and a vice president of different parties. Clearly, having Trump president and Kaine VP could cause major problems.

It specifically states in the United States Constitution how those electoral votes are decided, and those votes under that state certified.


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 [the electors of each state] 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


NO WHERE does it state those representing the electoral system of that state, can use their own discretion or judgment CONTRARY to what the number of votes reveal.

I suggest you take the time to read the Constitution again

You are misreading that statement. They - the electors of each state - make a list of THEIR votes not the popular vote of the election in their state. If what you said were true then faithless electors would be unconstitutional. The reality is that faithless electors are not only constitutional but in 21 states there are no legal ramifications for doing so. That means that an elector can vote for anyone once sent to actually vote regardless of the popular vote in that state. This has happened in the past as well and why there are laws to prevent it in 29 states.

Faithless elector - Wikipedia

If your contention was true then faithless electors could not exist. Further, not all states award their electoral votes in the same manner. Nebraska and Maine both award EC by both a popular portion and congressional districts (split in the same manner in which they get those votes). If the constitution directed how electoral votes were awarded then this would not be possible - all 50 states follow the same constitutional requirements. In reality, the constitution says absolutely nothing on how electoral votes are to be awarded. All it does is lay out the process for them to actually vote and how many each state receives.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

CONSTITUTION of the United States
amendment XII
The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists 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 for President, shall be the President

That does not say anything about forfeiting their vote.

There is nothing in the amendment that states electorals are allowed to make their own decisions contrary to the voting results of that state.

You posted it. It directly states they will name the person voted for as presedent and vice presedent. THEY vote for that person. There is nothing anywhere in the cited amendment that even mentions the popular vote in the state they come from or restricting their vote there.

It does state they are obligated to reliquish those electoral votes based on the results of the vote received in their state. Show me where in the Cinstitution it specifically says otherwise.

No, it does not. A vote in the state itself is not even required at all. Nowhere in the constitution, even to this day, is a vote for the president by the people required. Should a state decide to adjust their own law, they can elect the president by coin toss should they chose.

You are entirely misunderstanding what the point of the 12th amendment is - it addressed the problem of having electors cast 2 votes that ended up with a president and a vice president of different parties. Clearly, having Trump president and Kaine VP could cause major problems.

It specifically states in the United States Constitution how those electoral votes are decided, and those votes under that state certified.


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 [the electors of each state] 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


NO WHERE does it state those representing the electoral system of that state, can use their own discretion or judgment CONTRARY to what the number of votes reveal.

I suggest you take the time to read the Constitution again

You are misreading that statement. They - the electors of each state - make a list of THEIR votes not the popular vote of the election in their state. If what you said were true then faithless electors would be unconstitutional. The reality is that faithless electors are not only constitutional but in 21 states there are no legal ramifications for doing so. That means that an elector can vote for anyone once sent to actually vote regardless of the popular vote in that state. This has happened in the past as well and why there are laws to prevent it in 29 states.

Faithless elector - Wikipedia

If your contention was true then faithless electors could not exist. Further, not all states award their electoral votes in the same manner. Nebraska and Maine both award EC by both a popular portion and congressional districts (split in the same manner in which they get those votes). If the constitution directed how electoral votes were awarded then this would not be possible - all 50 states follow the same constitutional requirements. In reality, the constitution says absolutely nothing on how electoral votes are to be awarded. All it does is lay out the process for them to actually vote and how many each state receives.

Read Article Ii Section 1

It says the electors SHALL MAKE a list of the candidates voted AND certify the vote counts of each candidate of their assigned state. That result is sealed and presented to the president of the senate. The state awards the candidate the electoral count based on those votes which are certified.

Shall make is not suggestive and does not leave interpretation for an "option". Article II section 1 and Amendment XII both give clear instruction regarding how states are to follow the process of an electoral college, which specifies a list candidates and to provide certified vote counts of each candidate that's voted on. Only if no presidential candidate receives a count of 270 can a group of representatives, and not the people, be allowed to make a decision regarding the selection of a President and Vice President. That case senerio is stated and a resolution provided under the XII Amendment, the Constitution makes no other allowances to a change in the decision for president.

I've quoted what's written in the United States Constitution regarding the electing of a president from a selection of candidates. Now I want you to show me where it clearly states your argument, regarding the electoral college. Namely that electors of a state CAN relinquish their electoral college contrary to the voting count they have received - Amendment or Article and section. When is it shown "historically" that a state electorate has actually made a decision that was contrary to those votes received, that successfully changed the nomination and outcome in making its final decision of a presidential election. I would like to see where you are finding that to have specifically occurred in a national election, and where it's written in the constitution that electorates have allowances to make their own decisions in choosing for themselves (not based on voting results received) a presidential candidate, in your next response to back up your argument.

 

[Kosh]

2 for Clinton and 5 for Trump!

 

[Pogo]

That does not say anything about forfeiting their vote.

There is nothing in the amendment that states electorals are allowed to make their own decisions contrary to the voting results of that state.

You posted it. It directly states they will name the person voted for as presedent and vice presedent. THEY vote for that person. There is nothing anywhere in the cited amendment that even mentions the popular vote in the state they come from or restricting their vote there.

It does state they are obligated to reliquish those electoral votes based on the results of the vote received in their state. Show me where in the Cinstitution it specifically says otherwise.

No, it does not. A vote in the state itself is not even required at all. Nowhere in the constitution, even to this day, is a vote for the president by the people required. Should a state decide to adjust their own law, they can elect the president by coin toss should they chose.

You are entirely misunderstanding what the point of the 12th amendment is - it addressed the problem of having electors cast 2 votes that ended up with a president and a vice president of different parties. Clearly, having Trump president and Kaine VP could cause major problems.

It specifically states in the United States Constitution how those electoral votes are decided, and those votes under that state certified.


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 [the electors of each state] 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


NO WHERE does it state those representing the electoral system of that state, can use their own discretion or judgment CONTRARY to what the number of votes reveal.

I suggest you take the time to read the Constitution again

You are misreading that statement. They - the electors of each state - make a list of THEIR votes not the popular vote of the election in their state. If what you said were true then faithless electors would be unconstitutional. The reality is that faithless electors are not only constitutional but in 21 states there are no legal ramifications for doing so. That means that an elector can vote for anyone once sent to actually vote regardless of the popular vote in that state. This has happened in the past as well and why there are laws to prevent it in 29 states.

Faithless elector - Wikipedia

If your contention was true then faithless electors could not exist. Further, not all states award their electoral votes in the same manner. Nebraska and Maine both award EC by both a popular portion and congressional districts (split in the same manner in which they get those votes). If the constitution directed how electoral votes were awarded then this would not be possible - all 50 states follow the same constitutional requirements. In reality, the constitution says absolutely nothing on how electoral votes are to be awarded. All it does is lay out the process for them to actually vote and how many each state receives.

Read Article Ii Section 1

It says the electors SHALL MAKE a list of the candidates voted AND certify the vote counts of each candidate of their assigned state. That result is sealed and presented to the president of the senate. The state awards the candidate the electoral count based on those votes which are certified.

Shall make is not suggestive and does not leave interpretation for an "option". Article II section 1 and Amendment XII both give clear instruction regarding how states are to follow the process of an electoral college, which specifies a list candidates and to provide certified vote counts of each candidate that's voted on. Only if no presidential candidate receives a count of 270 can a group of representatives, and not the people, be allowed to make a decision regarding the selection of a President and Vice President. That case senerio is stated and a resolution provided under the XII Amendment, the Constitution makes no other allowances to a change in the decision for president.

I've quoted what's written in the United States Constitution regarding the electing of a president from a selection of candidates. Now I want you to show me where it clearly states your argument, regarding the electoral college. Namely that electors of a state CAN relinquish their electoral college contrary to the voting count they have received - Amendment or Article and section. When is it shown "historically" that a state electorate has actually made a decision that was contrary to those votes received, that successfully changed the nomination and outcome in making its final decision of a presidential election. I would like to see where you are finding that to have specifically occurred in a national election, and where it's written in the constitution that electorates have allowances to make their own decisions in choosing for themselves (not based on voting results received) a presidential candidate, in your next response to back up your argument.

That's the *ELECTORAL* vote count, Sparkles.

And yes it is completely up to the state's discretion

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

>> In the earliest presidential elections, many states did not have popular elections for electors. Their legislatures simply chose electors. Over time, states gradually moved toward the popular elections we now take for granted.

But state legislatures have occasionally retained the power for themselves. In 1876, for instance, the new state of Colorado opted not to hold a popular election for electors, with the legislature claiming publicly that it lacked sufficient time to organize an election. It’s more likely that Republican legislators worried that the people would vote for three Democratic electors and move to end Reconstruction in a closely contested election. The state legislature chose to retain the power to choose electors for itself — just that one time.

And state legislatures have modified the rules for the selection of presidential electors when they worry that the people of the state will vote for a disfavored candidate. In 1892, for instance, Democrats gained control of the Michigan legislature. They decided that presidential electors should be appointed according to popular vote totals in each congressional district, as opposed to the statewide winner-take-all system that had previously existed. Michiganders had consistently voted for a slate of Republican electors in the recent past, and the move to elections by district guaranteed that Democrats would win at least a few of electoral votes.

In McPherson v. Blacker, the Supreme Court approved Michigan’s move and found that the mode of appointing electors was “exclusively” reserved to the states. The court would not interfere with the state legislature’s decision, whatever the reason. << --- EC Can Still Stop Rump
​

*NOR*, Sparkles, are such electors required to reflect the popular votes of their state --- or even to consider whether the person they vote for is even a declared candidate at all. In 1960 fifteen electors from three different states decided they would not vote for either Kennedy or Nixon and cast their votes for Senator Harry Byrd, who wasn't even running for President.

So yes they can.

Perhaps you should read the Constitution. And a history book.

Bottom line -- Wisconsin need not forfeit its EV on account of not having a recount done, because it doesn't need to know that number. It doesn't need to have held an election at all. No state does.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

There is nothing in the amendment that states electorals are allowed to make their own decisions contrary to the voting results of that state.

You posted it. It directly states they will name the person voted for as presedent and vice presedent. THEY vote for that person. There is nothing anywhere in the cited amendment that even mentions the popular vote in the state they come from or restricting their vote there.

It does state they are obligated to reliquish those electoral votes based on the results of the vote received in their state. Show me where in the Cinstitution it specifically says otherwise.

No, it does not. A vote in the state itself is not even required at all. Nowhere in the constitution, even to this day, is a vote for the president by the people required. Should a state decide to adjust their own law, they can elect the president by coin toss should they chose.

You are entirely misunderstanding what the point of the 12th amendment is - it addressed the problem of having electors cast 2 votes that ended up with a president and a vice president of different parties. Clearly, having Trump president and Kaine VP could cause major problems.

It specifically states in the United States Constitution how those electoral votes are decided, and those votes under that state certified.


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 [the electors of each state] 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


NO WHERE does it state those representing the electoral system of that state, can use their own discretion or judgment CONTRARY to what the number of votes reveal.

I suggest you take the time to read the Constitution again

You are misreading that statement. They - the electors of each state - make a list of THEIR votes not the popular vote of the election in their state. If what you said were true then faithless electors would be unconstitutional. The reality is that faithless electors are not only constitutional but in 21 states there are no legal ramifications for doing so. That means that an elector can vote for anyone once sent to actually vote regardless of the popular vote in that state. This has happened in the past as well and why there are laws to prevent it in 29 states.

Faithless elector - Wikipedia

If your contention was true then faithless electors could not exist. Further, not all states award their electoral votes in the same manner. Nebraska and Maine both award EC by both a popular portion and congressional districts (split in the same manner in which they get those votes). If the constitution directed how electoral votes were awarded then this would not be possible - all 50 states follow the same constitutional requirements. In reality, the constitution says absolutely nothing on how electoral votes are to be awarded. All it does is lay out the process for them to actually vote and how many each state receives.

Read Article Ii Section 1

It says the electors SHALL MAKE a list of the candidates voted AND certify the vote counts of each candidate of their assigned state. That result is sealed and presented to the president of the senate. The state awards the candidate the electoral count based on those votes which are certified.

Shall make is not suggestive and does not leave interpretation for an "option". Article II section 1 and Amendment XII both give clear instruction regarding how states are to follow the process of an electoral college, which specifies a list candidates and to provide certified vote counts of each candidate that's voted on. Only if no presidential candidate receives a count of 270 can a group of representatives, and not the people, be allowed to make a decision regarding the selection of a President and Vice President. That case senerio is stated and a resolution provided under the XII Amendment, the Constitution makes no other allowances to a change in the decision for president.

I've quoted what's written in the United States Constitution regarding the electing of a president from a selection of candidates. Now I want you to show me where it clearly states your argument, regarding the electoral college. Namely that electors of a state CAN relinquish their electoral college contrary to the voting count they have received - Amendment or Article and section. When is it shown "historically" that a state electorate has actually made a decision that was contrary to those votes received, that successfully changed the nomination and outcome in making its final decision of a presidential election. I would like to see where you are finding that to have specifically occurred in a national election, and where it's written in the constitution that electorates have allowances to make their own decisions in choosing for themselves (not based on voting results received) a presidential candidate, in your next response to back up your argument.

That's the *ELECTORAL* vote count, Sparkles.

And yes it is completely up to the state's discretion

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

>> In the earliest presidential elections, many states did not have popular elections for electors. Their legislatures simply chose electors. Over time, states gradually moved toward the popular elections we now take for granted.

But state legislatures have occasionally retained the power for themselves. In 1876, for instance, the new state of Colorado opted not to hold a popular election for electors, with the legislature claiming publicly that it lacked sufficient time to organize an election. It’s more likely that Republican legislators worried that the people would vote for three Democratic electors and move to end Reconstruction in a closely contested election. The state legislature chose to retain the power to choose electors for itself — just that one time.

And state legislatures have modified the rules for the selection of presidential electors when they worry that the people of the state will vote for a disfavored candidate. In 1892, for instance, Democrats gained control of the Michigan legislature. They decided that presidential electors should be appointed according to popular vote totals in each congressional district, as opposed to the statewide winner-take-all system that had previously existed. Michiganders had consistently voted for a slate of Republican electors in the recent past, and the move to elections by district guaranteed that Democrats would win at least a few of electoral votes.

In McPherson v. Blacker, the Supreme Court approved Michigan’s move and found that the mode of appointing electors was “exclusively” reserved to the states. The court would not interfere with the state legislature’s decision, whatever the reason. << --- EC Can Still Stop Rump
​

*NOR*, Sparkles, are such electors required to reflect the popular votes of their state --- or even to consider whether the person they vote for is even a declared candidate at all. In 1960 fifteen electors from three different states decided they would not vote for either Kennedy or Nixon and cast their votes for Senator Harry Byrd, who wasn't even running for President.

So yes they can.

Perhaps you should read the Constitution. And a history book.

Bottom line -- Wisconsin need not forfeit its EV on account of not having a recount done, because it doesn't need to know that number. It doesn't need to have held an election at all. No state does.

Pogo, my reposense is not in regard to HOW electorals are selected by the state. All your long winded response did was waste time talking about HOW electors are selected to their respective position. My post was in regards to the Constitutional responsibility given to the states regarding the electoral process of electing a president, their role in specifying a list of candidates, those votes tallied of each candidate running for the office, as well as certifying those voting counts, stated specifically under the United States Constitution.

Please take the time in understanding the difference between the process a state may use in SELECTING their electorates, and the Constitutional role state electorates play collectively in the actual process of selecting a president, before you make a further fool of yourself.

 

[Pogo]

You posted it. It directly states they will name the person voted for as presedent and vice presedent. THEY vote for that person. There is nothing anywhere in the cited amendment that even mentions the popular vote in the state they come from or restricting their vote there.
No, it does not. A vote in the state itself is not even required at all. Nowhere in the constitution, even to this day, is a vote for the president by the people required. Should a state decide to adjust their own law, they can elect the president by coin toss should they chose.

You are entirely misunderstanding what the point of the 12th amendment is - it addressed the problem of having electors cast 2 votes that ended up with a president and a vice president of different parties. Clearly, having Trump president and Kaine VP could cause major problems.

It specifically states in the United States Constitution how those electoral votes are decided, and those votes under that state certified.


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 [the electors of each state] 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


NO WHERE does it state those representing the electoral system of that state, can use their own discretion or judgment CONTRARY to what the number of votes reveal.

I suggest you take the time to read the Constitution again

You are misreading that statement. They - the electors of each state - make a list of THEIR votes not the popular vote of the election in their state. If what you said were true then faithless electors would be unconstitutional. The reality is that faithless electors are not only constitutional but in 21 states there are no legal ramifications for doing so. That means that an elector can vote for anyone once sent to actually vote regardless of the popular vote in that state. This has happened in the past as well and why there are laws to prevent it in 29 states.

Faithless elector - Wikipedia

If your contention was true then faithless electors could not exist. Further, not all states award their electoral votes in the same manner. Nebraska and Maine both award EC by both a popular portion and congressional districts (split in the same manner in which they get those votes). If the constitution directed how electoral votes were awarded then this would not be possible - all 50 states follow the same constitutional requirements. In reality, the constitution says absolutely nothing on how electoral votes are to be awarded. All it does is lay out the process for them to actually vote and how many each state receives.

Read Article Ii Section 1

It says the electors SHALL MAKE a list of the candidates voted AND certify the vote counts of each candidate of their assigned state. That result is sealed and presented to the president of the senate. The state awards the candidate the electoral count based on those votes which are certified.

Shall make is not suggestive and does not leave interpretation for an "option". Article II section 1 and Amendment XII both give clear instruction regarding how states are to follow the process of an electoral college, which specifies a list candidates and to provide certified vote counts of each candidate that's voted on. Only if no presidential candidate receives a count of 270 can a group of representatives, and not the people, be allowed to make a decision regarding the selection of a President and Vice President. That case senerio is stated and a resolution provided under the XII Amendment, the Constitution makes no other allowances to a change in the decision for president.

I've quoted what's written in the United States Constitution regarding the electing of a president from a selection of candidates. Now I want you to show me where it clearly states your argument, regarding the electoral college. Namely that electors of a state CAN relinquish their electoral college contrary to the voting count they have received - Amendment or Article and section. When is it shown "historically" that a state electorate has actually made a decision that was contrary to those votes received, that successfully changed the nomination and outcome in making its final decision of a presidential election. I would like to see where you are finding that to have specifically occurred in a national election, and where it's written in the constitution that electorates have allowances to make their own decisions in choosing for themselves (not based on voting results received) a presidential candidate, in your next response to back up your argument.

That's the *ELECTORAL* vote count, Sparkles.

And yes it is completely up to the state's discretion

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

>> In the earliest presidential elections, many states did not have popular elections for electors. Their legislatures simply chose electors. Over time, states gradually moved toward the popular elections we now take for granted.

But state legislatures have occasionally retained the power for themselves. In 1876, for instance, the new state of Colorado opted not to hold a popular election for electors, with the legislature claiming publicly that it lacked sufficient time to organize an election. It’s more likely that Republican legislators worried that the people would vote for three Democratic electors and move to end Reconstruction in a closely contested election. The state legislature chose to retain the power to choose electors for itself — just that one time.

And state legislatures have modified the rules for the selection of presidential electors when they worry that the people of the state will vote for a disfavored candidate. In 1892, for instance, Democrats gained control of the Michigan legislature. They decided that presidential electors should be appointed according to popular vote totals in each congressional district, as opposed to the statewide winner-take-all system that had previously existed. Michiganders had consistently voted for a slate of Republican electors in the recent past, and the move to elections by district guaranteed that Democrats would win at least a few of electoral votes.

In McPherson v. Blacker, the Supreme Court approved Michigan’s move and found that the mode of appointing electors was “exclusively” reserved to the states. The court would not interfere with the state legislature’s decision, whatever the reason. << --- EC Can Still Stop Rump
​

*NOR*, Sparkles, are such electors required to reflect the popular votes of their state --- or even to consider whether the person they vote for is even a declared candidate at all. In 1960 fifteen electors from three different states decided they would not vote for either Kennedy or Nixon and cast their votes for Senator Harry Byrd, who wasn't even running for President.

So yes they can.

Perhaps you should read the Constitution. And a history book.

Bottom line -- Wisconsin need not forfeit its EV on account of not having a recount done, because it doesn't need to know that number. It doesn't need to have held an election at all. No state does.

Pogo, my reposense is not in regard to HOW electorals are selected by the state. All your long winded response did was waste time talking about HOW electors are selected to their respective position. My post was in regards to the Constitutional responsibility given to the states regarding the electoral process of electing a president, their role in specifying a list of candidates, those votes tallied of each candidate running for the office, as well as certifying those voting counts, stated specifically under the United States Constitution.

Please take the time in understanding the difference between the process a state may use in SELECTING their electorates, and the Constitutional role state electorates play collectively in the actual process of selecting a president, before you make a further fool of yourself.

There's no way out of this hole Homer. You tried to allude a "vote count" to a popular vote, and I just proved that's not what it's about. There is in fact no popular vote required at all, which is what I've been saying since this thread began. That's why the OP ran away.

And yet you're still here to tell us "up is down".

 

[Little-Acorn]

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


If the state can't finish its recount in time, doesn't the original vote count stand?

Trump wins all the electoral votes.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

It specifically states in the United States Constitution how those electoral votes are decided, and those votes under that state certified.


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 [the electors of each state] 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


NO WHERE does it state those representing the electoral system of that state, can use their own discretion or judgment CONTRARY to what the number of votes reveal.

I suggest you take the time to read the Constitution again

You are misreading that statement. They - the electors of each state - make a list of THEIR votes not the popular vote of the election in their state. If what you said were true then faithless electors would be unconstitutional. The reality is that faithless electors are not only constitutional but in 21 states there are no legal ramifications for doing so. That means that an elector can vote for anyone once sent to actually vote regardless of the popular vote in that state. This has happened in the past as well and why there are laws to prevent it in 29 states.

Faithless elector - Wikipedia

If your contention was true then faithless electors could not exist. Further, not all states award their electoral votes in the same manner. Nebraska and Maine both award EC by both a popular portion and congressional districts (split in the same manner in which they get those votes). If the constitution directed how electoral votes were awarded then this would not be possible - all 50 states follow the same constitutional requirements. In reality, the constitution says absolutely nothing on how electoral votes are to be awarded. All it does is lay out the process for them to actually vote and how many each state receives.

Read Article Ii Section 1

It says the electors SHALL MAKE a list of the candidates voted AND certify the vote counts of each candidate of their assigned state. That result is sealed and presented to the president of the senate. The state awards the candidate the electoral count based on those votes which are certified.

Shall make is not suggestive and does not leave interpretation for an "option". Article II section 1 and Amendment XII both give clear instruction regarding how states are to follow the process of an electoral college, which specifies a list candidates and to provide certified vote counts of each candidate that's voted on. Only if no presidential candidate receives a count of 270 can a group of representatives, and not the people, be allowed to make a decision regarding the selection of a President and Vice President. That case senerio is stated and a resolution provided under the XII Amendment, the Constitution makes no other allowances to a change in the decision for president.

I've quoted what's written in the United States Constitution regarding the electing of a president from a selection of candidates. Now I want you to show me where it clearly states your argument, regarding the electoral college. Namely that electors of a state CAN relinquish their electoral college contrary to the voting count they have received - Amendment or Article and section. When is it shown "historically" that a state electorate has actually made a decision that was contrary to those votes received, that successfully changed the nomination and outcome in making its final decision of a presidential election. I would like to see where you are finding that to have specifically occurred in a national election, and where it's written in the constitution that electorates have allowances to make their own decisions in choosing for themselves (not based on voting results received) a presidential candidate, in your next response to back up your argument.

That's the *ELECTORAL* vote count, Sparkles.

And yes it is completely up to the state's discretion

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

>> In the earliest presidential elections, many states did not have popular elections for electors. Their legislatures simply chose electors. Over time, states gradually moved toward the popular elections we now take for granted.

But state legislatures have occasionally retained the power for themselves. In 1876, for instance, the new state of Colorado opted not to hold a popular election for electors, with the legislature claiming publicly that it lacked sufficient time to organize an election. It’s more likely that Republican legislators worried that the people would vote for three Democratic electors and move to end Reconstruction in a closely contested election. The state legislature chose to retain the power to choose electors for itself — just that one time.

And state legislatures have modified the rules for the selection of presidential electors when they worry that the people of the state will vote for a disfavored candidate. In 1892, for instance, Democrats gained control of the Michigan legislature. They decided that presidential electors should be appointed according to popular vote totals in each congressional district, as opposed to the statewide winner-take-all system that had previously existed. Michiganders had consistently voted for a slate of Republican electors in the recent past, and the move to elections by district guaranteed that Democrats would win at least a few of electoral votes.

In McPherson v. Blacker, the Supreme Court approved Michigan’s move and found that the mode of appointing electors was “exclusively” reserved to the states. The court would not interfere with the state legislature’s decision, whatever the reason. << --- EC Can Still Stop Rump
​

*NOR*, Sparkles, are such electors required to reflect the popular votes of their state --- or even to consider whether the person they vote for is even a declared candidate at all. In 1960 fifteen electors from three different states decided they would not vote for either Kennedy or Nixon and cast their votes for Senator Harry Byrd, who wasn't even running for President.

So yes they can.

Perhaps you should read the Constitution. And a history book.

Bottom line -- Wisconsin need not forfeit its EV on account of not having a recount done, because it doesn't need to know that number. It doesn't need to have held an election at all. No state does.

Pogo, my reposense is not in regard to HOW electorals are selected by the state. All your long winded response did was waste time talking about HOW electors are selected to their respective position. My post was in regards to the Constitutional responsibility given to the states regarding the electoral process of electing a president, their role in specifying a list of candidates, those votes tallied of each candidate running for the office, as well as certifying those voting counts, stated specifically under the United States Constitution.

Please take the time in understanding the difference between the process a state may use in SELECTING their electorates, and the Constitutional role state electorates play collectively in the actual process of selecting a president, before you make a further fool of yourself.

There's no way out of this hole Homer. You tried to allude a "vote count" to a popular vote, and I just proved that's not what it's about. There is in fact no popular vote required at all, which is what I've been saying since this thread began. That's why the OP ran away.

And yet you're still here to tell us "up is down".

LMAO!!! Where was any of that bloviated crap actually found and outlined in the US Constitution regarding the electoral college? Can you provide for me an Amendment, article or section in the Constitution you are attempting to reference your material from, before you continue to waste my time? I honestly don't really care how STATES choose in their selection process their electorates based on their own STATE legislature, what I'm referencing are the duties and responsibilities given to ALL electorates on a national level as established by our founders under Article II section 1 or the XII Amendment of our Constitution. I've been quoting the United States Constitution for a reason, if you haven't figured that out.

Seriously Pogo, .... when that little light bulb of yours finally goes off and you are capable of clearing the cob webs to actually tell the difference, let me know.

 

[Pogo]

You are misreading that statement. They - the electors of each state - make a list of THEIR votes not the popular vote of the election in their state. If what you said were true then faithless electors would be unconstitutional. The reality is that faithless electors are not only constitutional but in 21 states there are no legal ramifications for doing so. That means that an elector can vote for anyone once sent to actually vote regardless of the popular vote in that state. This has happened in the past as well and why there are laws to prevent it in 29 states.

Faithless elector - Wikipedia

If your contention was true then faithless electors could not exist. Further, not all states award their electoral votes in the same manner. Nebraska and Maine both award EC by both a popular portion and congressional districts (split in the same manner in which they get those votes). If the constitution directed how electoral votes were awarded then this would not be possible - all 50 states follow the same constitutional requirements. In reality, the constitution says absolutely nothing on how electoral votes are to be awarded. All it does is lay out the process for them to actually vote and how many each state receives.

Read Article Ii Section 1

It says the electors SHALL MAKE a list of the candidates voted AND certify the vote counts of each candidate of their assigned state. That result is sealed and presented to the president of the senate. The state awards the candidate the electoral count based on those votes which are certified.

Shall make is not suggestive and does not leave interpretation for an "option". Article II section 1 and Amendment XII both give clear instruction regarding how states are to follow the process of an electoral college, which specifies a list candidates and to provide certified vote counts of each candidate that's voted on. Only if no presidential candidate receives a count of 270 can a group of representatives, and not the people, be allowed to make a decision regarding the selection of a President and Vice President. That case senerio is stated and a resolution provided under the XII Amendment, the Constitution makes no other allowances to a change in the decision for president.

I've quoted what's written in the United States Constitution regarding the electing of a president from a selection of candidates. Now I want you to show me where it clearly states your argument, regarding the electoral college. Namely that electors of a state CAN relinquish their electoral college contrary to the voting count they have received - Amendment or Article and section. When is it shown "historically" that a state electorate has actually made a decision that was contrary to those votes received, that successfully changed the nomination and outcome in making its final decision of a presidential election. I would like to see where you are finding that to have specifically occurred in a national election, and where it's written in the constitution that electorates have allowances to make their own decisions in choosing for themselves (not based on voting results received) a presidential candidate, in your next response to back up your argument.

That's the *ELECTORAL* vote count, Sparkles.

And yes it is completely up to the state's discretion

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

>> In the earliest presidential elections, many states did not have popular elections for electors. Their legislatures simply chose electors. Over time, states gradually moved toward the popular elections we now take for granted.

But state legislatures have occasionally retained the power for themselves. In 1876, for instance, the new state of Colorado opted not to hold a popular election for electors, with the legislature claiming publicly that it lacked sufficient time to organize an election. It’s more likely that Republican legislators worried that the people would vote for three Democratic electors and move to end Reconstruction in a closely contested election. The state legislature chose to retain the power to choose electors for itself — just that one time.

And state legislatures have modified the rules for the selection of presidential electors when they worry that the people of the state will vote for a disfavored candidate. In 1892, for instance, Democrats gained control of the Michigan legislature. They decided that presidential electors should be appointed according to popular vote totals in each congressional district, as opposed to the statewide winner-take-all system that had previously existed. Michiganders had consistently voted for a slate of Republican electors in the recent past, and the move to elections by district guaranteed that Democrats would win at least a few of electoral votes.

In McPherson v. Blacker, the Supreme Court approved Michigan’s move and found that the mode of appointing electors was “exclusively” reserved to the states. The court would not interfere with the state legislature’s decision, whatever the reason. << --- EC Can Still Stop Rump
​

*NOR*, Sparkles, are such electors required to reflect the popular votes of their state --- or even to consider whether the person they vote for is even a declared candidate at all. In 1960 fifteen electors from three different states decided they would not vote for either Kennedy or Nixon and cast their votes for Senator Harry Byrd, who wasn't even running for President.

So yes they can.

Perhaps you should read the Constitution. And a history book.

Bottom line -- Wisconsin need not forfeit its EV on account of not having a recount done, because it doesn't need to know that number. It doesn't need to have held an election at all. No state does.

Pogo, my reposense is not in regard to HOW electorals are selected by the state. All your long winded response did was waste time talking about HOW electors are selected to their respective position. My post was in regards to the Constitutional responsibility given to the states regarding the electoral process of electing a president, their role in specifying a list of candidates, those votes tallied of each candidate running for the office, as well as certifying those voting counts, stated specifically under the United States Constitution.

Please take the time in understanding the difference between the process a state may use in SELECTING their electorates, and the Constitutional role state electorates play collectively in the actual process of selecting a president, before you make a further fool of yourself.

There's no way out of this hole Homer. You tried to allude a "vote count" to a popular vote, and I just proved that's not what it's about. There is in fact no popular vote required at all, which is what I've been saying since this thread began. That's why the OP ran away.

And yet you're still here to tell us "up is down".

LMAO!!! Where was any of that bloviated crap actually found and outlined in the US Constitution regarding the electoral college? Can you provide for me an Amendment, article or section in the Constitution you are attempting to reference your material from, before you continue to waste my time? I honestly don't really care how STATES choose in their selection process their electorates based on their own STATE legislature, what I'm referencing are the duties and responsibilities given to ALL electorates on a national level as established by our founders under Article II section 1 or the XII Amendment of our Constitution. I've been quoting the United States Constitution for a reason, if you haven't figured that out.

Seriously Pogo, .... when that little light bulb of yours finally goes off and you are capable of clearing the cob webs to actually tell the difference, let me know.

None of which has anything to do with this topic.

Your inability to read, let alone how to spell "shackles" (ironic name for this topic) is irrelevant. The point remains that the OP's "forfeit" premise has failed. At least he had enough sense to see that and run away. You -- still digging. Let us know if you get to China.

 

[FA_Q2]

That does not say anything about forfeiting their vote.

There is nothing in the amendment that states electorals are allowed to make their own decisions contrary to the voting results of that state.

You posted it. It directly states they will name the person voted for as presedent and vice presedent. THEY vote for that person. There is nothing anywhere in the cited amendment that even mentions the popular vote in the state they come from or restricting their vote there.

It does state they are obligated to reliquish those electoral votes based on the results of the vote received in their state. Show me where in the Cinstitution it specifically says otherwise.

No, it does not. A vote in the state itself is not even required at all. Nowhere in the constitution, even to this day, is a vote for the president by the people required. Should a state decide to adjust their own law, they can elect the president by coin toss should they chose.

You are entirely misunderstanding what the point of the 12th amendment is - it addressed the problem of having electors cast 2 votes that ended up with a president and a vice president of different parties. Clearly, having Trump president and Kaine VP could cause major problems.

It specifically states in the United States Constitution how those electoral votes are decided, and those votes under that state certified.


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 [the electors of each state] 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


NO WHERE does it state those representing the electoral system of that state, can use their own discretion or judgment CONTRARY to what the number of votes reveal.

I suggest you take the time to read the Constitution again

You are misreading that statement. They - the electors of each state - make a list of THEIR votes not the popular vote of the election in their state. If what you said were true then faithless electors would be unconstitutional. The reality is that faithless electors are not only constitutional but in 21 states there are no legal ramifications for doing so. That means that an elector can vote for anyone once sent to actually vote regardless of the popular vote in that state. This has happened in the past as well and why there are laws to prevent it in 29 states.

Faithless elector - Wikipedia

If your contention was true then faithless electors could not exist. Further, not all states award their electoral votes in the same manner. Nebraska and Maine both award EC by both a popular portion and congressional districts (split in the same manner in which they get those votes). If the constitution directed how electoral votes were awarded then this would not be possible - all 50 states follow the same constitutional requirements. In reality, the constitution says absolutely nothing on how electoral votes are to be awarded. All it does is lay out the process for them to actually vote and how many each state receives.

Read Article Ii Section 1

It says the electors SHALL MAKE a list of the candidates voted AND certify the vote counts of each candidate of their assigned state. That result is sealed and presented to the president of the senate. The state awards the candidate the electoral count based on those votes which are certified.

Shall make is not suggestive and does not leave interpretation for an "option". Article II section 1 and Amendment XII both give clear instruction regarding how states are to follow the process of an electoral college, which specifies a list candidates and to provide certified vote counts of each candidate that's voted on. Only if no presidential candidate receives a count of 270 can a group of representatives, and not the people, be allowed to make a decision regarding the selection of a President and Vice President. That case senerio is stated and a resolution provided under the XII Amendment, the Constitution makes no other allowances to a change in the decision for president.

I've quoted what's written in the United States Constitution regarding the electing of a president from a selection of candidates. Now I want you to show me where it clearly states your argument, regarding the electoral college. Namely that electors of a state CAN relinquish their electoral college contrary to the voting count they have received - Amendment or Article and section. When is it shown "historically" that a state electorate has actually made a decision that was contrary to those votes received, that successfully changed the nomination and outcome in making its final decision of a presidential election. I would like to see where you are finding that to have specifically occurred in a national election, and where it's written in the constitution that electorates have allowances to make their own decisions in choosing for themselves (not based on voting results received) a presidential candidate, in your next response to back up your argument.

I did. SHALL MAKE A LIST of the ELECTOR'S votes. That has no required connection with the popular vote in the state in question. You continue to make that connection when it simply does not exist. An elector may cast a vote for anyone that they want. It does not state they shall make a list of the PV in that state. It does not state that they shall make a list pertaining to the vote process in that state. It does sirectly state that they shall make a list of the candidates voted for BY THE ELECTORS. Nowhere does it say that those electors are beholden to anything at all - that law does not reside within the federal government.

If what you state is true then square it with the FACT that faithless electors have not only existed in the past but the cold hard fact that those faithless elector votes were valid and counted. Again, if what you stated were correct those faithless elector's votes would be illegal and invalid. As they are not you are clearly adding things to that amendment which are not actually stated.

 

[longknife]

When will you Leftards finally realize that the president was never meant to be elected by the popular vote?

 

[Pogo]

When will you Leftards finally realize that the president was never meant to be elected by the popular vote?

Somehow I doubt Shekels can be described as a "leftard" but go ahead -- make your case.