Don't you realize that all the electors are actually remote controlled robots. Putin is at his gaming desk getting warmed up. :har:

Hey lets see if we can find an article tying in the development of the electoral college to Hitler. Whats scary about that is Im sure the now well informed intellectual giants populating this country which have suddenly appeared with the advent of intardnetz would immediately see a connection.

I agree, you're more likely to end up with Elizabeth II as your President than the electoral count come out as anything other than a victory for Trump.

Kinda funny but as a non American I'm not to familiar with U.S. voting laws. It took me all of five minutes to read up on the Electors and how they got that position. These people are party faithful who were probable elected because of their longtime faithful service to their respective parties. And that is the way they will vote despite the hysteria on left wing media sources.

Here's an odd thought I had for a hypothetical: In many states, state law binds the electors to vote in accordance with the state's apportioning of the electoral votes; keep in mind some states give all their electoral votes to the winning candidate in their state while other states apportion the electors according to the ratio of votes each candidate received in those states; there is no federal law or mandate in the Constitution requiring an elector to abide by their state's method of apportioning the electors' votes, so the only thing restricting the electors is the mish-mash of varying states' laws. Lets say a Presidential election resulted in one candidate garnering, prior to the official vote of the College, a total of 300 votes and the opponent 238 votes. Suppose something happens casting the candidate with the 300 votes in a very bad light and and, say 40 of the leading candidate's electors decide to bolt and either abstain or vote for the second candidate. As I understand it, 21 states do not have laws requiring electors to vote strictly in accordance with each of those states' electoral apportionment, so a "faithless elector" in those states would face no punishment; the other states do specify legal and, possibly, criminal remedies against "faithless electors" from their states. However, SCOTUS has only upheld the right of the states to require a pledge from electors and has not ruled on the Constitutionality of the states' ability to punish the electors for being "faithless" or to enforce the apportioned vote; further, the Constitution does not specifically bar an elector from casting a vote differing from their state's election result, giving each elector a 'free will' in their voting decision. So, the 40 electors bolt and let's say the second candidate gets to at least the 270 votes needed to win. Some states (again, there is no national standard to follow) require the voiding of the "faithless" electors' vote, but there is no such provision for vote changing in the Constitution, making it appear that the final vote taken on the day the electors vote is indeed the final result, the laws of the individual states not withstanding. Can a state legally void and replace a "faithless" elector's vote after the final tally?...

Keep in mind no state has ever prosecuted a "faithless" elector nor has any state, to my knowledge, ever sought to change the vote of a "faithless" elector after the announced tally, so there is no established precedent...



<O>

I thought there have been a lot of "faithless" electors in the past?

Not that i think it happens this time.

Just 179 in the entire history of the nation, half of them because the candidate had died. That's a small number compared to the total number of electors over the same period.

Can you give any idea of the over/under?...


<O>

Truth be told, we really don't know what would happen if we had a significant number of faithless electors. It has never happened before.

In the states that do have laws obligating the performance of the electors, we may not have a certified vote.

All the electors have to sign the vote certification form. If a significant number of electors violate state law, the other electors can refuse to sign the Certificate of Vote under the auspice that the vote is in violation of the state law.

Additionally, the individual Secretary of State has to certify the vote, he or she can refuse to certify a vote that is in violation of the state law.

What would happen if either or both of these occurred? We don't know, it would have to go before the state supreme court and perhaps even the US Supreme court, but what would happen to the formal election of the President? Dunno.

I think what would happen is that the GOP would try to recall the faithless electors and depending on the state that may or may not be allowed.

It is truly an unprecedented issue.

But I seriously doubt this will become an issue. With the exception of a candidate dying, all of our faithless electors have been in small numbers.

From the little knowledge I have learned about these electoral is that in almost every election there are some from both side that change course and vote for the other candidate.

In about 36 hours from now it will be clear-Trump will be USA's next President, Not going to happen, that 60 or more electoral should suddenly forget what their task is...maybe a few not more

Markus

Like Markus said, "It's not going to happen"

But we have about one more day till we find out ...

What if these some 38 votes the DNC needs come from firmly committed faithful republican electors due to these last minute news media scares that Hillary was robbed by the Russians, even pointing to Putin's dislike for her when she was SoS?

It's either going to be over tomorrow or this crazy 2016 National election is going to continue in it's insane path of destruction for both sides until neither side has the necessary 270 electoral college votes in order to become the next POTUS.

The rules are already in place for this with the US Congress to vote on which of the three highest finshing electoral votes will receive the honor.

No write in's, no debating anyone else that's the present law.

Like you said this has never happened before so no one can really say what will happen if that moment should come.

One thing's for sure the surging stock market will go belly up and President Obama would have to call his vacation in Hawaii short in order to get back to Washington to appease a nation that it still has President in place and for us not to worry.

See y'all tomorrow :up:

I'm just hoping the results of all this is really cheap 7.62x54r & 7.62x39, and maybe some really cheap Mosin Nagants too. I want to be able to arm my future militia company. :03:

Here is a list of faithless electors

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

Bad move on this side of the pond. If the militia is called up for national service you guys couldn't get resupplied. If you go rebel it's Federal government ammo that'd be available for forage. Either way better to chamber for 5.56x45.