Forum Thread

Repubs paralyze Electoral College. Reps then elect Romney

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 3 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Constitutional crisis will begin the day before the start of the meeting of the Electoral Congress (EC) on December 15th, and end with the Republican-majority Congressmen in the US House of Representatives electing Mitt Romney as President on January 3rd. The resulting chaos will cause rioting in the streets, with a constitutional crisis perhaps permanently paralyzing the democracy of the US

    Background:
    The Electoral Congress (EC) will meet on December 15th to count the Slate of Electors submitted by each State. Generally speaking, if a majority of citizens in a particular State voted for Romney, then the Republican Slate of Electors would be certified by that State's Secretary of State, and this Republican Slate of Electors would submit their votes to the Electoral College. The same is true if the majority of citizens of a State voted for Obama, then it would be the Democratic Slate of Electors voting in the EC. All of the 50 States' Slate of Electors, having been certified by their particular State, would submit their votes, and the results would then be tabulated. After that, the process continues in it's normal fashion.

    But, if there are unresolved lawsuits in any particular State, that particular State's Electoral Congress Electors will NOT BE ALLOWED TO VOTE! This is because, until the lawsuit is resolved, it is not known if the Republican Electors, or the Democrat's Electors should be the ones to vote!!!!! (This is a True Statement.)

    Before a State's Electoral College Electors will be allowed to vote, the State must certify who they are. And any State lawsuit MUST be resolved or that State will simply not be voting.

    But the CONSTITUTION DOES NOT ALLOW ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESOLVE ANY LAWSUIT. As per the Constitution, only those States where the Electors are known and Certified will be allowed to vote. Then on December 24th, the Electoral Congress submits its totals to the US Congress, and is dissolved. If there is a tie (caused by the unresolved lawsuits disqualifying some States) then per the Constitution, the US House of Representatives will decide who will be the next President!!!

    The Republicans control the US House of Representatives, and they will choose Romney as the next President.

    Both CNN and Fox have already "tipped their hand", They both have mentioned dozens and dozens of times, what would happen if there was a tie in the EC. And lawyers around the country have already been working on the lawsuits.

    As for the upcoming Lawsuits: Fox and Karl Rove, and dozens of Conservative media outlets, have talked about "Obama suppressing the Vote." and also stories about "The 8 million missing White Votes." as described in the Real Clear Politics article.

    And the Conservatives will blame it on the Voting machines being tampered with. (The ones that don't produce a paper backup!) And they will "PROVE" it with their false analysis of the voting machines in OHIO!!!!!!
    Ohio's voting machines had "experimental software installed" just 2 days before the election. (That this was allowed by a Republican Secretary of State has kinda fallen thru the cracks.)

    Just before December 15th there will be a blizzard of lawsuits.
    PS: With FEMA's reputation being smeared daily by Fox, the Military will be called upon to "restore calm and let the democratic process proceed"
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    crisis,
    No offense but at this time I think we can say that you were wrong. Thank goodness.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Hey crisis:

    What you have written somewhat scares me, but I have to say that I seriously doubt the validity of what you wrote. If lawsuits are filed in a given state, and then that state's electorate would not be allowed to vote, then I think the Democrats would file loss suits in every state that Romney won and have all of his votes be held as "under jurisdictional challenges". Nonetheless, both parties could do this, and there would be no winner. I just can't see the courts allowing such a thing to happen. Maybe in one or two locations, but certainly not in all of them.