Prediction - The Largest Voter Fraud In US History

originally posted by: queenofswords
And their delegates are pledged to cast their vote for the candidate the people voted for.

There are 21 states that do not have laws compelling delegates to vote for the pledged candidate.

Just to add to this, no faithless elector has ever bene prosecuted in the states that do have compulsory laws nor has the Constitutionality of those laws been tested. Theoretically the Electoral College could tell us to go eff ourselves and there would be very little you could do about it initially.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: queenofswords
And their delegates are pledged to cast their vote for the candidate the people voted for.

There are 21 states that do not have laws compelling delegates to vote for the pledged candidate.

Just to add to this, no faithless elector has ever bene prosecuted in the states that do have compulsory laws nor has the Constitutionality of those laws been tested. Theoretically the Electoral College could tell us to go eff ourselves and there would be very little you could do about it initially.

That is true.www.archives.gov...

I think we are going to witness some very out of the ordinary things this election year!

originally posted by: queenofswords
I think we are going to witness some very out of the ordinary things this election year!

I agree. Both parties are looking more and more specious with how they handle the process.

a reply to: Gothmog

A republic? Last I checked, it was a polyarchy with limited republican ideals.

Just checked again. Yep, still a polyarchic society with limited republican ideals. Political Theory 101 course for today.

originally posted by: stosh64

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Puppylove
Already happening with Hillary vs. Bernie

"Jake Tapper Confronts Wasserman Schultz on the Charge Dem Superdelegates ‘Rig’ the Process"

WTF was that double speak??

To paraphrase:
We have superdelegates to prevent our candidates from running against grass roots activists. Then in the same breath, we democrats, highlight and emphasize inclusiveness and diversity to ensure grass roots activists can participate.

You cant make this stuff up. SMH

In a nutshell, "grass roots activists" i.e. Bernie Sanders can "participate". The "Superdelegates" will ensure they just don't beat the establishment candidate they have chosen.

originally posted by: SkipperJohn
I predict the largest case of voter fraud in the history of the United States starting today going through the 2016 election.
It already started on Super Tuesday. The GOP party is going to use all tactics to stop Donald Trump.

After reading this:

Their angry reactions, in the 24 hours since Mitt Romney and John McCain urged millions of voters to cooperate in a grand strategy to undermine Mr. Trump’s candidacy, have captured the seemingly inexorable force of a movement that still puzzles the Republican elite and now threatens to unravel the party they hold dear.

Link

I am convinced the GOP is desperate and will pull out all unethical options.

Skipper

A Small but important distinction of terms. There are those out there who would love to the term voter fraud as used in this thread continued

May I suggest to our friend that a more accurate term to use is Election Fraud. Voter fraud occurs when the voter seeks to do something shonky.

Election fraud occurs when the govt or political organisations seek to manipulate the votes of the electors in a way the voter did not not intend and would not approve of.

cheers

Trump so far has never managed more that 30 to 40% of Republican support. That is large majority of the party not supporting him. The problem for the GOP was they had way to many people in the mix spitting that remaining 70%. So no doubt the GOP is going try and bring down Trump. If Trump was pulling 70% of the parties support they would just let it ride and take the losses in the general election. As is, if the take him out they do so without ticking off the majority of the party and at least give themselves a chance at cutting some losses in the Senate. None of this requires fraud. The primaries work however the Parties decides they do. They could make it up whatever rules they want. Other minor US political parties just pick nominees.

Non binding primary voting did not even begin until the 1900 and it was more of a poll to test public opinion than anything, it was not binding in anyway. The idea of a binding primary process did not start until the 1970's. Until then you could get the nomination with out wining a single delegate.

The only voter fraud were gonna see is when Hillary wins the popular vote.

I don't know why everyone is automatically assuming that if either Cruz or Rubio drop out then all of their support will go to the other candidate. It doesn't always work that way. Just because trump is only pulling in 30-40% now with a three way race (or four if you include the bloke from Ohio) does not mean he will still only get 30-40% if it's narrowed to a two way race. It doesn't work that way. Even though he is not getting >50% of the Republican vote in the primaries, he IS the majority winning candidate at this point and the RNC needs to recognize that.

And I am not even a fan of the Donald.

originally posted by: charolais
I don't know why everyone is automatically assuming that if either Cruz or Rubio drop out then all of their support will go to the other candidate. It doesn't always work that way. Just because trump is only pulling in 30-40% now with a three way race (or four if you include the bloke from Ohio) does not mean he will still only get 30-40% if it's narrowed to a two way race. It doesn't work that way. Even though he is not getting >50% of the Republican vote in the primaries, he IS the majority winning candidate at this point and the RNC needs to recognize that.

And I am not even a fan of the Donald.

They do recognized that. And that means a total disaster in the general election. Trump has not gained from other drops outs, they either line up behind one of the others or just support nobody and stay home. The GOP knows that is going cost them not only the White House and Senate but tons of state and local elections as well. That is why they are so desperate to get rid of Trump. The GOP would almost cease to exist as a party after.

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: charolais
I don't know why everyone is automatically assuming that if either Cruz or Rubio drop out then all of their support will go to the other candidate. It doesn't always work that way. Just because trump is only pulling in 30-40% now with a three way race (or four if you include the bloke from Ohio) does not mean he will still only get 30-40% if it's narrowed to a two way race. It doesn't work that way. Even though he is not getting >50% of the Republican vote in the primaries, he IS the majority winning candidate at this point and the RNC needs to recognize that.

And I am not even a fan of the Donald.

They do recognized that. And that means a total disaster in the general election. Trump has not gained from other drops outs, they either line up behind one of the others or just support nobody and stay home. The GOP knows that is going cost them not only the White House and Senate but tons of state and local elections as well. That is why they are so desperate to get rid of Trump. The GOP would almost cease to exist as a party after.

You make a good point, during presidential election years the public sentiment regarding the presidential candidates usually bleeds through into the senate and house elections as well. It could very well be catastrophic for the Republicans... lose the presidential election AND lose multiple seats in congress.