It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Trump VS Clinton battle not finished just yet: Riots petitions and electoral college disputes

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 09:24 PM
a reply to: chiroy

Thanks. After this initial knee-jerk phase is over, the fireworks will move to Washington D.C., when Donald Trump starts replacing "Washington Insiders" with Non-Establishment types. I heard today that there are 4,000 positions that he'll either install his own people, or abolish the position totally. "Draining the Swamp" also means cutting waste.

posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 09:25 PM
Many posts in this thread argue that Trump won and that's that and that's the end of it and that the disgruntled protesters should just accept the results and go home.

What I've seen very little of though, (and what I'm looking for) is real hard facts/evidence that is written into law that would make it very hard for them to do. (overturn electoral votes against the popular vote of the state). Still can't find anything in the constitution/law that would carry a lot of weight in thwarting their efforts.

edit on 11-11-2016 by chiroy because: better language

posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 09:45 PM
a reply to: chiroy

Please ATS community. I'd like to know what stands in the way of elites/establishment/Clintons to bribe/manipulate/threaten electoral voters to overturn election results.

I don't think violence in the streets/civil unrest in itself is a powerful enough deterrent. I'm firm in my opinion that they simply won't care enough about civil unrest (given what's at stake), besides they always have to option of leaving if things don't go their way.

I'm hoping someone can point to something written in the constitution or the like that would be a powerful enough restraint to derail an attempt to swing the electoral college vote in Clinton's favour.

posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 11:16 PM
Different site, but same topic discussed

posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 11:56 PM
Regarding Faithless Electors:

The fines and penalties for faithless electors aren't all that great, probably not enough in themselves to prevent an Elector from switching their vote if they were so inclined.


Generally, the parties either nominate slates of potential Electors at their state party conventions or they chose them by a vote of the party's central committee. This happens in each state for each party by whatever rules the state party and (sometimes) the national party have for the process. This first part of the process results in each Presidential candidate having their own unique slate of potential Electors.

Political parties often choose Electors for the slate to recognize their service and dedication to that political party. They may be state elected officials, state party leaders, or people in the state who have a personal or political affiliation with their party's Presidential candidate.

Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged

So, the Electors that would have to switch their votes for Hillary to win would have been chosen by Republicans for their history, service and commitment to the Republican Party, which I would think, would tend to decrease the chances of them casting their vote for Hillary.

And even if the did so in significant enough numbers:

Under federal law an objection to a state’s Electoral votes may be made to the President of the Senate during Congress’s counting of Electoral votes in January. The objection must be made in writing and signed by at least one Senator and one member of the House of Representatives. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives debate the objection separately. Debate is limited to two hours. After the debate, both the Senate and the House of Representatives rejoin and both must agree to reject the votes.

So, the Congress, controlled by Republicans, would be able to challenge any votes cast by faithless electors and reject the votes.


Doesn't seem likely that all the pieces that would be necessary, for the faithless elector scenario to play out and replace Trump with Clinton, will fall into place.

edit on 11-11-2016 by imwilliam because: cause I felt like it

posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 12:28 AM
They're all going to go home in about two weeks when winter hits.

posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 12:57 AM

originally posted by: chiroy
I'm curious why the alternative news media haven't jumped on this (electoral voters are not really legally binded to their party) yet??????????
No one on alternative media is even considering the possibility that the electoral votes can still go to Clinton. Why??

Because it was a landslide. Popular vote doesn't mean ANYTHING. NOTHING AT ALL.

We have 50 states. They voted. They voted for The Donald. It wasnt even close.

No one, including Hillary, denies it.

Stop for two seconds and think about it. Who water Hillary to be the POTUS the most of anyone in the world? Yeah, that's right, Hillary. Do you think she'd concede at around 230am if she thought there was a chance?

Also, I'm so surprised you guys don't understand what a concede means. It means she admits and ACCEPTS defeat. It's over.

Christ some of you need medication.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in