Finally! Forensic Election Audit in Maricopa County (AZ) Begins Next Week

a reply to: tanstaafl

ballotpedia.org...(2020)

n each state, political parties nominate a slate of electors, or potential members of the Electoral College. In 48 states and the District of Columbia, a political party's slate of electors becomes part of the Electoral College when the party's nominee wins a plurality of the vote in the state.[1] "Faithless elector" is a term used to describe a member of the Electoral College who does not vote for his or her party's nominee for president or vice president.[2][3]

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Wrong. Every State in the Union has established that the popular vote for President in their State determines who the Electors will vote for, although there is at least one, or maybe two that allow for partials - meaning, the electors can be divided between the 2 candidates.

No, it decides what party gets to appoint Electors, they still have the latitude in many States to vote as they please which is why I specifically mentioned loyalty being the determining factor.

Again, this is still not an election, it's an appointment which is why the Constitution says it multiple times:

Electoral College

Clause 2. 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.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I thought the electors were supposed to vote for the candidate who won the popular election in the state, less they become a "faithless elector". is that not correct?

originally posted by: network dude
I thought the electors were supposed to vote for the candidate who won the popular election in the state, less they become a "faithless elector". is that not correct?

It depends, not all States have laws in place compelling them to vote for the winner of the popular vote in that State. Faithless Electors are a rarity because the appointment process for Electors typically has the party leaders choosing loyal party operatives but if there is no law in place they could still theoretically be a Faithless Elector and not violate any laws and their votes would still count when Congress does the official tally.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Looking at Georgia, a previous red state, went to Biden in the popular vote, and the electors voted for him as opposed to Trump. I just thought that was the way this worked, otherwise, elections would be massively pointless.

originally posted by: network dude
Looking at Georgia, a previous red state, went to Biden in the popular vote, and the electors voted for him as opposed to Trump. I just thought that was the way this worked, otherwise, elections would be massively pointless.

Of course they did, they were Democrat Party-loyalists. In theory though they could have voted for Trump if there isn't a state-level law precluding them from doing so.

originally posted by: Nunyabizisit
a reply to: Boadicea


Since the audit team returned the ballots to the county, complete with accurate chain of custody documents for each box, wouldn't that mean that the county also now knows the actual ballot count?

Has there been any statements by the county since receiving the ballots?

The ballots have not been returned yet. They are still in the arena.

azaudit.org...

originally posted by: IndieA

The ballots have not been returned yet. They are still in the arena.

azaudit.org...

Thank you! I thought they had been returned as well, so the correction is much appreciated.

originally posted by: IndieA

originally posted by: Nunyabizisit
a reply to: Boadicea


Since the audit team returned the ballots to the county, complete with accurate chain of custody documents for each box, wouldn't that mean that the county also now knows the actual ballot count?

Has there been any statements by the county since receiving the ballots?

The ballots have not been returned yet. They are still in the arena.

azaudit.org...

Thank you!

I was under the impression that they had been returned to the county.

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Boadicea

It would help if Senator Fann told us who to listen to, when it comes to audit results. Who's authorized to be a spokesperson.

As far as I know, Ken Bennett is still the designated spokesman for the audit. Senators have been speaking for themselves, and their duties as legislators with regards to the audit. But Ken Bennett is the only official spokesperson that I know of.

Fann may consider this established and known, but if she has to make such a correction, then obviously not. So I agree now would be a good time to clarify who the public should be listening to on the matter.

Thank-you. Then it will be Ken Bennett that I'll believe without hesitation, unless we hear otherwise.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: tanstaafl

ballotpedia.org...(2020)

"In each state, political parties nominate a slate of electors, or potential members of the Electoral College. In 48 states and the District of Columbia, a political party's slate of electors becomes part of the Electoral College when the party's nominee wins a plurality of the vote in the state.[1] "Faithless elector" is a term used to describe a member of the Electoral College who does not vote for his or her party's nominee for president or vice president.[2][3]"

I know, I'm messing with the Mason dude...

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
More gas lighting from CNN and Al Gore. I don't think they had the voting machines during that election and their wasn't foreign and domestic interference (fraud).

Democrats Drag Out a Clearly PANICKED Al Gore to Attack Arizona Audit as Officials Prepare to Release Preliminary Evaluation this Week (VIDEO)

Al Gore???
Lol
They may as well interview a stonecutter.
Too funny!

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: IndieA

The ballots have not been returned yet. They are still in the arena.

azaudit.org...

Thank you! I thought they had been returned as well, so the correction is much appreciated.

Thanks for the info and the updates.

Still time today for breaking news.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Again, this is still not an election, it's an appointment which is why the Constitution says it multiple times:

You can play word games all you want, but

a) it is an appointment based on the results of ... an ELECTION, and

and this is the main point I was making anyway

b) it is fully and wholly within the purview, power and prerogative of the State Legislatures, Congress cannot hijack the State process for choosing the President.

Also, I'd argue that the clause that allows the federal government to make law regarding federal elections in the States is not unlimited, and States would be well within their Rights al the 10th amendment to ignore any laws that act to weaken the integrity of their - our - elections.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
You can play word games all you want, but

The Constitution is pretty clear that it's an appointment, if you think the portion I cited above dealing directly with this process is a 'word game' you need to work that out on your own.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
The Constitution is pretty clear that it's an appointment,

of the Electors, yes.

Electors whose choice is mandated by the popular vote - the ELECTION.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Electors whose choice is mandated by the popular vote - the ELECTION.

Except it was not nor is it uniform today. Regardless, the point was that Electors are not elected, they are appointed, as per the Constitution.

a reply to: shooterbrody


Been watching the activity for a while now.

They appear to still be conducting at least 2 tasks on on a small scale.

They had 5-10 teams scanning ballots, but now it looks like down to 3 teams.

The boxes for scanning appear to be picked out individually from different pallets.


They also have approx 10 people doing what looks like comparing printouts of something (not ballots) to computer records of the same information.

Pretty sure I saw Finchem in the building earlier, and someone that looks a little like the colonel is there now.

They definitely appear to be wrapping things up, but aren't quite finished yet.

Just an observation: I haven't seen a single pink shirt today.

ETA - Just saw a single pink shirt looking around.

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
More gas lighting from CNN and Al Gore. I don't think they had the voting machines during that election and their wasn't foreign and domestic interference (fraud).

Democrats Drag Out a Clearly PANICKED Al Gore to Attack Arizona Audit as Officials Prepare to Release Preliminary Evaluation this Week (VIDEO)

Good lord if they are dragging out Al Gore someone is starting to feel a little pressure.

Dont know why they think anyone would care about his opinion on this.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Except it was not nor is it uniform today.

Irrelevant.

Regardless, the point was that Electors are not elected, they are appointed, as per the Constitution.

No, the point is that the method for chusing the President is based on an ELECTION.

But by all means, continue pontificating if you like, I'm done...