50+ votes in the Electoral College may have been illegitimate - Polidicks

[url]http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/least-50-trump-electors-were-illegitimately-seated-electoral-college-members[/url] [QUOTE]More than 50 Electoral College members who voted for Donald Trump were ineligible to serve as presidential electors because they did not live in the congressional districts they represented or held elective office in states legally barring dual officeholders. That stunning finding is among the conclusions of an extensive 1,000-plus page legal briefing prepared by a bipartisan nationwide legal team for members of Congress who are being urged to object to certifying the 2016 Electoral College results on Friday. “Trump’s ascension to the presidency is completely illegitimate,” said Ryan Clayton of Americans Take Action, who is promoting the effort. “It’s not just Russians hacking our democracy. It’s not just voter suppression at unprecedented levels. It is also [that] there are Republicans illegally casting ballots in the Electoral College, and in a sufficient number that the results of the Electoral College proceedings are illegitimate as well.”[/QUOTE] If this is true, what happens next? Does the Electoral College revote with legitimate electors, or does Clinton win?

Do we have a better source?

You know what? I hope this is proven false, 100% because the implications of this being true would pretty much prove that this country is actually, full blown fucked say what you will about trump. Imagine how fucking bad it would be if this was true and not corrected. If it IS true, I hope the country really redoes the entire system we have in place.

This is shaping up to be the shadiest election I know of, on every side.

[QUOTE=download;51625989]Do we have a better source?[/QUOTE] Looking for one, but not finding any that don't link back to Alternet.

I do believe that all electors should be within their respective districts, I actually voted for something similar here in North Dakota, but I really feel this is picking at grains of sand under the nails with a knife. No matter how the vote is done, Trump will still become president, namely because that's how the states voted.

I've never heard of Alternet. Looking them up, it seems that they are run by a non-profit organisation, and while they have a strong left bias and use sensationalist headlines, they do not tend to generally make things up. What is said in the article about Pam Bondi appears to be correct though. She is both an elector and the attorney general of Florida, and this does appear to be prohibited by Florida's constitution [url=http://www.ncsl.org/research/ethics/restrictions-on-holding-concurrent-office.aspx]according to this[/url]

None of the info they share sounds even remotely shady.. If anything it looks like a desperate attempt to disqualify electors based on technicalities. Trying to pump this up with the same narrative of the election being unfair or "shady" is just stupid imo.

[QUOTE=srobins;51626045]None of the info they share sounds even remotely shady.. If anything it looks like a desperate attempt to disqualify electors based on technicalities. Trying to pump this up with the same narrative of the election being unfair or "shady" is just stupid imo.[/QUOTE] If you have a constitution and you're not supposed to violate it and you violate it and there are no repercussions, why have a constitution?

[QUOTE=Samiam22;51626048]If you have a constitution and you're not supposed to violate it and you violate it and there are no repercussions, why have a constitution?[/QUOTE] If the votes really are legally illegitimate then of course they should disqualify them or whatever is the proper legal proceeding. I'm just saying that this type of story is very clearly used to push the idea that Trump won through some sneaky / shady tactics and I don't think this applies. Someone living outside of their district doesn't really strike me as "shady", it sounds like the type of technical violation that could be pulled up from any election if someone was motivated to find a reason to disqualify the results.

So it's some hit piece without a single sited source. So this is what they call "fake news."

I think, in this case, it's less important to ask [I]is this illegal/shady[/I] and more important to ask, [B]how has this gone in other elections.[/B] There are things in the constitution and general code of law, that for one reason or another, become merely vestigial due to circumstances of our age. It used to be that public hanging was considered just and reasonable under the "no cruel or unusual punishment" section of the constitution, for instance. (Not to say Cruel and Unusual is vestigial, but that interpretation is entirely different due to circumstances of our age.) If say, Obama, had just as many (or more) such electors, should we retroactively invalidate his administration? Bush? Clinton? Bush Sr.? And on and on? To choose [B]now[/B] to focus on the issue, to put literal crucial important on it, is undeniable self-serving bias. It's not catching Al Capone on tax-code violations, it's arresting Al Capone for not firing a shotgun before passing through a four-way intersection. (An actual law, intended to keep wagon drivers and motorists from accidentally striking someone in an age before horns. Still technically alive and well in some places around the nation, albeit not observed.)

All citations within the source of the article indicate that they lead to a dropbox with multiple PDFs with no current specific citations, and the locations of the information that is presented within the article leads to a broad folder with a wide array stuff. Certain quotes are taken directly from some of the PDFs but I'm unsure whether they're legitimate or not. Red, and blue state summaries two transcripts from 2005 electoral vote objection supporting evidence(???) 2 elector spreadsheets, and an executive summary The second source that's listed within the article leads to the homepage of Americans take action third source "woman-led effort" leads to just another article(???) from the site

[QUOTE=Laferio;51626089]All citations within the source of the article indicate that they lead to a dropbox with multiple PDFs with no current specific citations, and the locations of the information that is presented within the article leads to a broad folder with a wide array stuff. Certain quotes are taken directly from some of the PDFs but I'm unsure whether they're legitimate or not. etcetc[/QUOTE] the only shady shit here is this article

First it's the DNC, then it's the Russian hackers, now it's some technicality. Can we just accept that Trump won and move on already. It reminds me of when the Republicans were looking for any reason to discredit Obama, but now the tables are turned.

-snip- on second thought, not starting this argument

Yea this doesn't sound particularly truthful. I'm not seeing any other news sites covering this and I've never heard of Alternet.

its fake. no major news outlets are reporting it, only ones that are aggressively left leaning are

Can an admin please lock the thread then? Sorry for spreading fake news.

Stinks of fake news tbh.

I'm sure there are also Electoral College members who voted for Clinton and are ineligible to serve as presidential electors for the same exact reasons. It can't be one sided.

isn't this a little biased [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/cQSAXZN.png[/IMG]

Well it's great to see that people are quick to dig into it and investigate. Fuck fake news.

Doesn't seem fake, just extraordinarily biased. Locked at OP's request.