Please don't Panic, Remember Gerald Ford & LBJ Acting Presidents during the recounting of Votes.

a reply to: Annee

Well Dear Anne, the recounting of votes is not illegal at all, it is a normal procedure to follow in case of extremely tied elections, and no doubt this is one.

Everybody can see that none of the states in dispute were gotten for landslide by Donald Trump, his margins are so much tiny, around 0.5%.

In many modern democracies around the world No body is proclaimed President elect without at least a partial recounting of votes.

A verification is part of a normal auditory practices an election must have, none of the candidates must oppose it, to the contrary the apparent winner ought to be who would want that his triumph become more clear, to be really undisputable. That is the best for the good of the country.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

originally posted by: The angel of light
a reply to: Annee

Well Dear Anne, the recounting of votes is not illegal at all, it is a normal procedure to follow in case of extremely tied elections, and no doubt this one.

Everybody can see that none of the stateps in dispute were gotten for landslide by Donald Trump, his margins are so much tiny.

In many modern democracies around the world No body is proclaimed President elect without at least a partial recounting of votes.

A verification is part of a normal auditory practices an election must have, none of the candidates must oppose it, to the contrary the apparent winner ought to be who would want that his triumph become more clear, to be really undisputable.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

Very logical post Angel of Lightness.

Honestly, I think Trump will end up being closer to what I want - - then those who voted for him. I'm more of a "hard core, go after the prize" then I believe the majority of his supporters are (In the physical world). Other "worlds/dimensions"? I enjoy Great White Brotherhood.

Trump was gearing up for lawsuits if he lost the election. Yet, his supporters dismiss it like it never was - - and attack Hillary because Jill Stein requested recounts.

It boggles the mind.

originally posted by: The angel of light
The Peace of God to all that belong to the Light,
Dear Readers,

We still don't have legally a President elect in the country, in spite of what one of the candidates is assuming, the timing is not yet reached to have one already proclaimed by the Electoral College.

Only when the electoral college meets and arrives to a decision with all the members being present is that we are going to have one.

Before that time we only have a presumptive President elect, that is the most anybody can say now, especially considering that the election results are not yet enough clear or definitive to call a winner in three states.

The margins of difference in between the forerunners are well below 1%, and two of the parties believe there were irregularities.

Now, at this point it is clear that the general election has been challenged not by one but two of the candidates:

Mrs Jill Stein of the Green Party and Mrs Hillary Clinton of the Democratic Party.

I think we all must react with prudence, and putting tha nation above partisan interests, this is a moment to test our love for America and our respect for rule of law.

Until the recounting of votes in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania ends it is premature to proclaim a clear winner of the election of November 8th.

Please check:

www.yahoo.com...

www.npr.org...

There is no reason for rushing into a transition process since it would not help the country to do it to the wrong person.

Even if the recounting takes more time than what it is expected and this would delay the transition there are procedures already prescribed by the constitution of who must assume the Presidency temporally.

The Constitution even considers the worst case scenario, a perfect tied election in between two candidates and what to do in such a case.

Please check:

www.theatlantic.com...

The constitution apparently for what experts have said in the past estates that the Vicepresident in Office at the moment the term ends, if there is no clear winner of the election or the deadlock is not yet solved, either by the Electoral College or the Congress, respectively, must be sworn Interim or Acting President of the country, in this case would be Mr Joseph Biden, as head of the Congress.

Now if the election become tied or two candidates without enough electoral votes to be formally elected the New President and VicePresident would be chosen in the following way :

The House must select from the top three presidential finishers in the Electoral College, the Senate from the top two vice-presidential finishers.

There is no reason for panic, this anyway would not be the first time to have a Acting President in the oval office, in 1974 Gerald Ford was swore for that job and he did it wonderfully.

Please check:

blog.constitutioncenter.org...

Lyndon B. Johnson also served the country as Acting President since November 22th 1963 to January 20th 1965 due to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Many of the most important laws of the Kennedy term took final form and were approved by the Congress during that year of his interim rule, before he was actually elected for the next one.

Please check:
www.sheppardsoftware.com...

The thread is open to the free discussion of this interesting and very relevant topic of what the Constitution establishes as the procedure to overcome a any electoral deadlock that can emerge from the new scenario we have right now of recounting of votes in three States where there are still doubts of who can be called as winner.

Thanks for your attention,

Please remain calm, in peace and respectful of the constitutional order.

The Angel of Lightness

I'm afraid I have bad news for the snowflakes and angels out there. Few if any media sources are correctly describing the process Mrs Stein is attempting to facilitate. This will not be a recount folks, recounts can only be performed before an election has been certified. As once all 50 states have certified their votes, the election itself IS over, so what she is doing is actually "challenging the outcome of an election contest."

How is this different? In a "recount", if discrepancies are found, the official vote total can be changed and if necessary the electoral votes can be reassigned to a different candidate with little fanfare. However, when challenging a completed election contest there are only two possible outcomes. 1) The initial result is re-verified and nothing changes or 2) the initial result is thrown out and the entire state must vote again. ONCE AN ELECTION RESULT HAS BEEN CERTIFIED IT CANNOT BE CHANGED

Needless to say, in order to get an entire state's votes thrown out (let alone 3) and an new election held requires all sorts of court proceedings and historically the courts (including the Supreme Court) are only concerned with if the will of the people has been satisfied. In other words, unless the Dems can show that they won ALL THREE states, Trump would still have the majority of electoral votes, thus the court will decide that the will of the people is for president elect Trump and subsequently dismiss this whole affair posthaste.

a reply to: Voiceofthemajority

And once the courts shoot this down the intial results as certified by each state will be final. Is a swing possible? Very, very unlikely. I assure you all it is not just as simple as stuffing a few boxes and then declaring Hillary the new president. From a legal standpoint, Trump has very little to worry about.

Further, this action was filed far too late and if the "recounting" of votes is not done by Dec. 13th the courts will award Mr Trump the electoral votes as specified by the state certified results. The courts will not allow one snowflakes baseless claim to hold up the process of inaugurating a legally elected United States President. Don't believe me? Go ask Al Gore how well that strategy works. What's that? You didn't read up on Gore vs. Bush ...so sorry.

a reply to: Annee

I understand your confusion what you are driving at is a democracy where majority rules.

What you fail to realize is that we are not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic.

Each state is awarded delegates in proportion to population. That is why states like California have 55 delegates while Nevada only has 6.

I remember in a previous post you informed me that people like you who live in big cities are more educated than say someone like me who live in more rural areas.

With that in mind I fail to see why something that is so easy for me to understand somehow escapes your supreme intellect.

Just for the record if Stein had any sort of credibility why would she only target states where Trump won?

In Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan the combined vote separation was 107,114 votes. In Trumps favor.

In New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Nevada the combined separation was 72,951 votes. In Clintons favor.

To me there is no question as to Steins agenda.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Annee

nope you're wrong, elected by the people in a democratic republic us based on the representation as established through the constitution.

I know the difference.

You can "fancy talk" all you want with government legalize.

Trump was elected by Government Rule - - by the way the law is written - - - he was not elected by the people. Elected by the people would be majority of the people.

Except that is completely irrelevant!

Perhaps in some other country your argument would have merit, but it has no value here in the USA.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Annee

nope you're wrong, elected by the people in a democratic republic us based on the representation as established through the constitution.

I know the difference.

You can "fancy talk" all you want with government legalize.

Trump was elected by Government Rule - - by the way the law is written - - - he was not elected by the people. Elected by the people would be majority of the people.

Except that is completely irrelevant!

Perhaps in some other country your argument would have merit, but it has no value here in the USA.

Fact is fact.

Relevant is relevant.

originally posted by: Diisenchanted
a reply to: Annee

I understand your confusion . . .

I am not confused.

a reply to: Annee

Then why do you continue to spew irrelevance?

You definitely seem confused to me.

a reply to: Diisenchanted

Diisenchanted,

Clearly the electoral votes are not assigned proportionally to the population of each state, otherwise we would not have the present situation in which a candidate that is more than 2,200,000 votes ahead, about 1.7% points above in popular support is behind her closest competitor in such amount of electoral votes.

If the idea behind to have an electoral college is to open differences that are in popular so narrow is not working at all. The rule to assign electoral votes to the states does not look fair al all, it is like to roll a charged dice, to use of an example of what this means.

This system of electoral college is not really democratic since it gives more value to the votes of certain citizens over others.

This weights the votes saying that a vote emited in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin or Michigan has more value than one in California or New York.

In other words create citizens of first and second class, allowing the minority of people to rule over the majority of people.

To have this indirect way of election is clearly incompatible with the concept of one single and indivisible nation that Lincoln defended so much and costed a lot of lives to Americans of his generation to protect.

If Lincoln never would have been assassinated by sure he should had reformed the electoral system after the civil war, since America is not a confederation but a union of States.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

originally posted by: The angel of light

This system of electoral college is not really democratic since it gives more value to the votes of certain citizens over others.

I'd say we've outgrown it.

Look at the demographic that's been allowed to choose this current president. The Bible Belt, The Rust Belt, Blue Collar, non-college educated worker.

The world is more connected today then ever. Everyone via computer can connect with every place on this planet. (CAN means its technically possible).

We are Global. Our trade is Global. I feel like we just wrapped an Anchor Chain around it - - - stopping progression.

So that's what we've got instead of the progressive, college educated, diverse supporters who are the majority in actual votes counted.

I see some very confused people in this thread.

1) The United States of America is NOT a democracy. It is a Representative Republic.

2) It is a union of individual states.

3) Said states have representation in various ways: They are represented in the House by Congress people. They are represented in the US Senate by senators (2 each). They are represented by electors for the Electoral College. They are also led, and represented by each of their Governor.

4) Population density is taken into account when it comes to both Congress and Electors. This is why states with higher population have more electors and congress people. This is balanced our by allowing each state only 2 senators.

As it has been explained over and over and OVER again here on ATS (and plenty of other places on the internet): the EC is very important. Without it, large urban areas would rule over the rest of the US. That would not be fair at all. People in the middle of Kansas really do not want people from New York City telling them how to live, who should always be their leader of their country and always be the ones to dictate federal law to them.

When the US formed, it was a UNION of STATES. Each state at the time had been it's own colony, with it's own governor and own laws. Each colony at the time had things that were important to them, what they exported to keep their income, and to survive. Each colony agreed to enter into a UNION with a leader. They did not decide to get rid of their borders and just let the country be ruled by the federal government.

The same holds true today: Each state is different, has different concerns, different ways of life, and want different things. No state or group of states should ever be allowed to dictate over all the other states, unless it is a MAJORITY of states that do so, and only then through an agreement.

Too many of you out there seem to think that we are this country and all one people that are the same, and that we are some sort of democracy from out of ancient Greece. The answer to that is: You're WRONG. That is not what the United States of America is.

We are 50 INDIVIDUAL states, with our own laws, or own REPRESENTATIVES, and different ways of life. Hell, even the climates and environments are different, and we even have our own dialects of english that we speak.

You guys want the US to be an actual "democracy"? Then you'd better get rid of all the internal borders that we have, and abolish statehood.

The individual states of this country have spoken. That is how our election system for POTUS works. Not MOB RULE. Because the Framers of our nation understood that MOB RULE is the WORST way to run a country, and also there is NO way each individual colony would have agreed to it.

And even today: you try to abolish statehood, and you most certainly WILL have a damn civil war on your hands.

So yes, some of you ARE quite confused, and certainly are showing that you lack proper education in the formation of this country, and the WHY we do it the way we do. Or rather you THINK you know, but I'm sorry, you all need to go back and learn history over again.

a reply to: The angel of light

the electoral college is equal to the the states Federal House Representatives and their Federal Senators,
plus three for DC. currently it comes to about 700,000 each + or minus as low as a few tousnads up to tens of thousands for the house and the ones for the senate varies widely into the millions, in smaller states the numbers are a little higher, giving the states with higher population more voices/ votes than the ones with with lower population.and the ones for the senate the numbers varies widely into the millions. right now there are 435 federal representatives, and 100 federal senators. electoral college is 538, 435 for the representatives, 100 for the senators, plus three for DC.



here is a chart of the numbers for representatives , senators and electors and the population that they represent in their states.

had to cut it in half to fit it so it could be seen.


2012 - 2020 Federal Representation by People per House Seat, Senate Seat, and Electors

so tell me how Michigan's 16 electoral votes are greater than California's 55 electoral votes. in fact it's the other way around more people more votes in the electoral college.

California's 55 electors represent
the 2 for the Senate 18,670,995, the 53 for the House 704,566 voices /votes.

Michigan's 16 electors represent
the 2 for the Senate 4,955,813, the 14 for the House 707,973 voices /votes.

your 1.7% points, is more than adequately covered. in that they are spoken for by the electors instates that went blue.
in other states that trump got, that added up to 306 electoral votes, in those states majority voted for him not her.

trump turned the states she was counting on, in the past 6 elections they voted democrat, they voted republican this time.

I wonder if the confusion about US system of government and political system affect more those that come to the US as adults and become citizens without ever having attended US schools system where these topics about our government system is taught.

It should be mandatory that all citizens in the US be born or not, learn about our Constitutional Republic.

In order to be able to vote in elections.

A Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. A Constitutional Republic is the current form of government in the United States.

Elections are won by the amount of states electors that are won in an election.

Trump won the most states.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Annee

nope you're wrong, elected by the people in a democratic republic us based on the representation as established through the constitution.

I know the difference.

You can "fancy talk" all you want with government legalize.

Trump was elected by Government Rule - - by the way the law is written - - - he was not elected by the people. Elected by the people would be majority of the people.

Except that is completely irrelevant!

Perhaps in some other country your argument would have merit, but it has no value here in the USA.

Fact is fact.

Relevant is relevant.

It wasn't relevant to Hillary 3 weeks ago when she said, and I quote: "Anyone not willing to accept the results of an election is a danger to democracy.”

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

It was not because she thought to be the winner of the elections as per media propaganda.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Annee

nope you're wrong, elected by the people in a democratic republic us based on the representation as established through the constitution.

I know the difference.

You can "fancy talk" all you want with government legalize.

Trump was elected by Government Rule - - by the way the law is written - - - he was not elected by the people. Elected by the people would be majority of the people.

Except that is completely irrelevant!

Perhaps in some other country your argument would have merit, but it has no value here in the USA.

Fact is fact.

Relevant is relevant.

It wasn't relevant to Hillary 3 weeks ago when she said, and I quote: "Anyone not willing to accept the results of an election is a danger to democracy.”

And that has what to do with anything I've said?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Annee

nope you're wrong, elected by the people in a democratic republic us based on the representation as established through the constitution.

I know the difference.

You can "fancy talk" all you want with government legalize.

Trump was elected by Government Rule - - by the way the law is written - - - he was not elected by the people. Elected by the people would be majority of the people.

Except that is completely irrelevant!

Perhaps in some other country your argument would have merit, but it has no value here in the USA.

Fact is fact.

Relevant is relevant.

It wasn't relevant to Hillary 3 weeks ago when she said, and I quote: "Anyone not willing to accept the results of an election is a danger to democracy.”

And that has what to do with anything I've said?

All one has to do is scroll up this very page to see your hypocrisy.

Trump was gearing up for lawsuits if he lost the election. Yet, his supporters dismiss it like it never was - - and attack Hillary because Jill Stein requested recounts.

Funny enough, it was Hillary and the left making such a big deal about Trump and the right not accepting the outcomes of our voting system, yet they're suddenly the one's who did a 180 and crying corruption with no proof.

And the whole thing flew right over your head. Or you're intentionally obtuse. Neither is good.