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

[Rambunctious]

I heard so far Trump has added three votes to his column....oh yeah this is worth 12 million of the peoples money...LMFAO stupid stupid move libs.

 

[kaz]

Trump: I didn't want to hurt Hillary Clinton but the Attorney General tells me the evidence of corruption is overwhelming and she must be indicted and answer for her crimes. It looks like she might go to prison if convicted. For now we have seized her passport and her assets.

MSM: (stunned silence)

Trump: Well that's a first, thank you that's all for now.

You are

Lost, sense of humor, if found contact JakeStarkey immediately.

Oh, you are feeling the immense butt hurt coming for the Trumpkins and alt right after the inauguration.

Um ... you're the one still fighting on the deck of the USS Hillary, bright guy ...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Trump: I didn't want to hurt Hillary Clinton but the Attorney General tells me the evidence of corruption is overwhelming and she must be indicted and answer for her crimes. It looks like she might go to prison if convicted. For now we have seized her passport and her assets.

MSM: (stunned silence)

Trump: Well that's a first, thank you that's all for now.

You are

Lost, sense of humor, if found contact JakeStarkey immediately.

Oh, you are feeling the immense butt hurt coming for the Trumpkins and alt right after the inauguration.

Um ... you're the one still fighting on the deck of the USS Hillary, bright guy ...

You can continue on as a lying kaz, be my guest, but your butt hurt is obvious. You Trumpinits are all in for a very unhappy surprise.

 

[kaz]

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.

True, the Constitution gives no say to the Federal government, but you do know Electors need to follow the laws of their State, right?

 

[kaz]

Trump: I didn't want to hurt Hillary Clinton but the Attorney General tells me the evidence of corruption is overwhelming and she must be indicted and answer for her crimes. It looks like she might go to prison if convicted. For now we have seized her passport and her assets.

MSM: (stunned silence)

Trump: Well that's a first, thank you that's all for now.

You are

Lost, sense of humor, if found contact JakeStarkey immediately.

Oh, you are feeling the immense butt hurt coming for the Trumpkins and alt right after the inauguration.

Um ... you're the one still fighting on the deck of the USS Hillary, bright guy ...

You can continue on as a lying kaz, be my guest, but your butt hurt is obvious. You Trumpinits are all in for a very unhappy surprise.

I didn't vote for Trump and I still don't support him, but I'll give him a shot.

Hmm ... where are you finding the "butt hurt" in that? On the other hand, you're still fighting for Hillary. She lost, Jakie Pie. Give it up

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hmm ... where are you finding the "butt hurt" in that? On the other hand, you're still fighting for Hillary. She lost, Jakie Pie. Give it up

On top of that, you are still lying about your girl Hillary, kaz. She's gone, Trump will be forced out.

 

[kaz]

Hmm ... where are you finding the "butt hurt" in that? On the other hand, you're still fighting for Hillary. She lost, Jakie Pie. Give it up

On top of that, you are still lying about your girl Hillary, kaz. She's gone, Trump will be forced out.

I don't know what that means as it's not addressing anything I said

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hmm ... where are you finding the "butt hurt" in that? On the other hand, you're still fighting for Hillary. She lost, Jakie Pie. Give it up

On top of that, you are still lying about your girl Hillary, kaz. She's gone, Trump will be forced out.

I don't know what that means as it's not addressing anything I said

That's because you are delusional. You have not addressed anything of truth to what I have said. HRC is gone, which makes you sad and me happy. Now Trump is the next goal: resignation or forced out.

 

[kaz]

Hmm ... where are you finding the "butt hurt" in that? On the other hand, you're still fighting for Hillary. She lost, Jakie Pie. Give it up

On top of that, you are still lying about your girl Hillary, kaz. She's gone, Trump will be forced out.

I don't know what that means as it's not addressing anything I said

That's because you are delusional. You have not addressed anything of truth to what I have said. HRC is gone, which makes you sad and me happy. Now Trump is the next goal: resignation or forced out.

Ah, playground. Thanks for clarifying, Jake

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

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.

True, the Constitution gives no say to the Federal government, but you do know Electors need to follow the laws of their State, right?

Yes. That is why I stated:
'that law does not reside within the federal government.'

What we are talking about here is that the constitution does not require the EC to vote in any particular way. Shackles has stated that electors are held by the constitution to vote based on the election results of the state they are appointed from. That is false, the constitution does not hold electors to any standard. The states are free to place any standard on them that they chose (and many have essentially none at all other than they are selected by the party that wins).

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hmm ... where are you finding the "butt hurt" in that? On the other hand, you're still fighting for Hillary. She lost, Jakie Pie. Give it up

On top of that, you are still lying about your girl Hillary, kaz. She's gone, Trump will be forced out.

I don't know what that means as it's not addressing anything I said

That's because you are delusional. You have not addressed anything of truth to what I have said. HRC is gone, which makes you sad and me happy. Now Trump is the next goal: resignation or forced out.

Ah, playground. Thanks for clarifying, Jake

kaz has a sick head, fall down and go boom. Get better, kaz.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

True, the Constitution gives no say to the Federal government, but you do know Electors need to follow the laws of their State, right?

Yes. That is why I stated:
'that law does not reside within the federal government.'

What we are talking about here is that the constitution does not require the EC to vote in any particular way. Shackles has stated that electors are held by the constitution to vote based on the election results of the state they are appointed from. That is false, the constitution does not hold electors to any standard. The states are free to place any standard on them that they chose (and many have essentially none at all other than they are selected by the party that wins).

shakles, yes, is wrong. It's the states who, if they so wish, can require electors to do this, that, or whatever.

 

[kaz]

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.

True, the Constitution gives no say to the Federal government, but you do know Electors need to follow the laws of their State, right?

Yes. That is why I stated:
'that law does not reside within the federal government.'

What we are talking about here is that the constitution does not require the EC to vote in any particular way. Shackles has stated that electors are held by the constitution to vote based on the election results of the state they are appointed from. That is false, the constitution does not hold electors to any standard. The states are free to place any standard on them that they chose (and many have essentially none at all other than they are selected by the party that wins).

You made it sound in the post I responded to like Electors can vote any way they want. If you're saying that's not what you meant then fine, I accept you at your word

 

[kaz]

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.

True, the Constitution gives no say to the Federal government, but you do know Electors need to follow the laws of their State, right?

Yes. That is why I stated:
'that law does not reside within the federal government.'

What we are talking about here is that the constitution does not require the EC to vote in any particular way. Shackles has stated that electors are held by the constitution to vote based on the election results of the state they are appointed from. That is false, the constitution does not hold electors to any standard. The states are free to place any standard on them that they chose (and many have essentially none at all other than they are selected by the party that wins).

shakles, yes, is wrong. It's the states who, if they so wish, can require electors to do this, that, or whatever.

That was remarkably lucid ... for you ...

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

True, the Constitution gives no say to the Federal government, but you do know Electors need to follow the laws of their State, right?

Yes. That is why I stated:
'that law does not reside within the federal government.'

What we are talking about here is that the constitution does not require the EC to vote in any particular way. Shackles has stated that electors are held by the constitution to vote based on the election results of the state they are appointed from. That is false, the constitution does not hold electors to any standard. The states are free to place any standard on them that they chose (and many have essentially none at all other than they are selected by the party that wins).

shakles, yes, is wrong. It's the states who, if they so wish, can require electors to do this, that, or whatever.

That was remarkably lucid ... for you ...

It's good when you take your meds, and, yes, when you do, others do sound lucid.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

True, the Constitution gives no say to the Federal government, but you do know Electors need to follow the laws of their State, right?

Yes. That is why I stated:
'that law does not reside within the federal government.'

What we are talking about here is that the constitution does not require the EC to vote in any particular way. Shackles has stated that electors are held by the constitution to vote based on the election results of the state they are appointed from. That is false, the constitution does not hold electors to any standard. The states are free to place any standard on them that they chose (and many have essentially none at all other than they are selected by the party that wins).

You made it sound in the post I responded to like Electors can vote any way they want. If you're saying that's not what you meant then fine, I accept you at your word

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.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

Pogo, you cant even explain the difference between the electoral college process our founders established in selecting a president, and a popular vote. Why am I honestly not surprised by your post.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

True, the Constitution gives no say to the Federal government, but you do know Electors need to follow the laws of their State, right?

Yes. That is why I stated:
'that law does not reside within the federal government.'

What we are talking about here is that the constitution does not require the EC to vote in any particular way. Shackles has stated that electors are held by the constitution to vote based on the election results of the state they are appointed from. That is false, the constitution does not hold electors to any standard. The states are free to place any standard on them that they chose (and many have essentially none at all other than they are selected by the party that wins).

You made it sound in the post I responded to like Electors can vote any way they want. If you're saying that's not what you meant then fine, I accept you at your word

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.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

True, the Constitution gives no say to the Federal government, but you do know Electors need to follow the laws of their State, right?

Yes. That is why I stated:
'that law does not reside within the federal government.'

What we are talking about here is that the constitution does not require the EC to vote in any particular way. Shackles has stated that electors are held by the constitution to vote based on the election results of the state they are appointed from. That is false, the constitution does not hold electors to any standard. The states are free to place any standard on them that they chose (and many have essentially none at all other than they are selected by the party that wins).

You made it sound in the post I responded to like Electors can vote any way they want. If you're saying that's not what you meant then fine, I accept you at your word

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.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

True, the Constitution gives no say to the Federal government, but you do know Electors need to follow the laws of their State, right?

Yes. That is why I stated:
'that law does not reside within the federal government.'

What we are talking about here is that the constitution does not require the EC to vote in any particular way. Shackles has stated that electors are held by the constitution to vote based on the election results of the state they are appointed from. That is false, the constitution does not hold electors to any standard. The states are free to place any standard on them that they chose (and many have essentially none at all other than they are selected by the party that wins).

You made it sound in the post I responded to like Electors can vote any way they want. If you're saying that's not what you meant then fine, I accept you at your word

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.