Politics what happens if a future presidential election is hacked?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Denny Crane said:
Obama was a rockstar. His first election is the outlier.
Click to expand...
no outlier, less voted in 2016 period. of eligible voters, not registered voters. the number is far less as you yourself have pointed out in that less than a majority of eligible voters was achieved in any results. apathy has been cited in past polling.
 
I am in no way attacking my president or suggesting that this past elections results were not correct. this is a hypothetical situation in the future that seems to be unaddressed by our current constitution.
 
lawai'a said:
a tech is running through the code of the system, discovers security breach, changes election results. specific enough for you?
Click to expand...

Which State?
Probably best fix that States system. It seems several have be needing fixing for some time now.
 
Denny Crane said:
Dead voting in Chicago. Democrats with voting machines in the trunks of their cars in key districts.

Heard it before. The refuge of losers who can’t get over losing.

Even Nixon was cool about it.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. Nixon was cool with losing? Have you heard of watergate? He manipulated the election and was forced to resign
 
lawai'a said:
this doesn't address the hypothetical. what happens?
Click to expand...

It does for me. Correct the error. Depending on which State it is, does it even make a difference. You need more that one State to make a difference, I think.
 
MarAzul said:
It does for me. Correct the error. Depending on which State it is, does it even make a difference. You need more that one State to make a difference, I think.
Click to expand...
California. swings election. does the person certified even though they didn't win the electoral votes assigned to California remain as president? how about executive orders and legislation signed after certification but before discovery of hack?
 
lawai'a said:
California. swings election. does the person certified even though the didn't win the electoral votes assigned to California remain as president? how about executive orders and legislation signed after certification but before discovery of hack?
Click to expand...

California did not swing this election. But I still think you secure the election.

If you are speaking of some power influencing voters. The ain't no fix for that. The Russians have been trying to do that for 100 years now. Unfortunately, very successfully I fear. Many more people are socialist today than 50 years ago. It didn't do the trick this time around though.
 
MarAzul said:
California did not swing this election. But I still think you secure the election.

If you are speaking of some power influencing voters. The ain't no fix for that. The Russians have been trying to do that for 100 years now. Unfortunately, very successfully I fear. Many more people are socialist today than 50 years ago. It didn't do the trick this time around though.
Click to expand...
California has 55 electoral votes, approximately 18% of the electoral votes needed for 273. it would be enough. NOT THIS ELECTION CYCLE, a future hypothetical one where the democrat wins by 25. now what happens, the state really voted republican but the democrat was certified. now what happens.
 
I really, really should have included the word "FUTURE" between "A" and "Presidential". that was the intent.
 
lawai'a said:
some of these are going to be addressed during the current Supreme Court session. but the manipulation of the actual tallies and the swearing in of a president has no recourse for a correction of the process nor a way to change the outcome even if rigged. again foreign or domestic boogie man changes election day results to be discovered at some date after the electoral college votes, typically a month after the actual election. once the election is certified by the college's vote no recourse. what do we do? if it does happen with out a solution outlined, a clear protocol /clear path forward, there is the potential for a nations destabilization. yours and mine.
Click to expand...

My concern is the supreme court is heavy conservative and is going to allow continued supression.
 
Chris Craig said:
My concern is the supreme court is heavy conservative and is going to allow continued supression.
Click to expand...
yours is a valid concern but judge Roberts courts have been quoted "elections have consequences". the voter apathy that concerned you earlier has led to an undesirable consequence, though the failure of McConnell to even give obamas nominee a vote will also not be forgotten anytime soon.
 
no this doesn't apply and truly has nothing to do with this.
Denny Crane said:
Whatever they feel is necessary.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/6-legacy/deliberate-speed.html

The Brown decision declared the system of legal segregation unconstitutional. But the Court ordered only that the states end segregation with “all deliberate speed.”
Click to expand...
as the students pointed out our constitution doesn't have a provision to REMEDY the situation. no do over or powers to call for a special election. in this world we live in today , it is a potential threat to our system of governance that the founders couldn't imagine. it needs a solution.
 
lawai'a said:
no this doesn't apply and truly has nothing to do with this.

as the students pointed out our constitution doesn't have a provision to REMEDY the situation. no do over or powers to call for a special election. in this world we live in today , it is a potential threat to our system of governance that the founders couldn't imagine. it needs a solution.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't need a "solution."

The constitution had no "remedy" for Brown v. Board of Education, it was the Court that had the remedy power and used it. You might want to look up "remedy" in the judicial sense.

Just as 7-2 the justices ruled Al Gore's Florida recounts were unconstitutional. They mandated the state institute a constitutional recount up until there was no time left (and Gore never ever led in any of the recounts).

Just as with Al Gore, you cannot re-litigate the election results over and over until your side somehow wins.
 
Denny Crane said:
No it doesn't need a "solution."

The constitution had no "remedy" for Brown v. Board of Education, it was the Court that had the remedy power and used it. You might want to look up "remedy" in the judicial sense.

Just as 7-2 the justices ruled Al Gore's Florida recounts were unconstitutional. They mandated the state institute a constitutional recount up until there was no time left (and Gore never ever led in any of the recounts).

Just as with Al Gore, you cannot re-litigate the election results over and over until your side somehow wins.
Click to expand...
this isn't about recounts, it is about an election result that is false . the election is not manipulated but discovered after the fact. I truly don't give a flying fuk about past elections but can see for the potential manipulation of voter tallies. the constitution has no clear path for a do over. I have serious questions about what would happen. again for your bbenefit lets say a special election is somehow the courts remedy even though they have no legal standing or written law to justify it. what about all legislation written into law by the false winner? what about those that are sure it is fake news? can you see how this could be a destructive force?
 
I really wish that the first third of the article had never mentioned the current election results. it is the premise of a certified election giving the presidency to someone who didn't win the electoral votes based on the election tallies to have been changed for that desired results by a nefarious third party/person/state.
 
lawai'a said:
this isn't about recounts, it is about an election result that is false . the election is not manipulated but discovered after the fact. I truly don't give a flying fuk about past elections but can see for the potential manipulation of voter tallies. the constitution has no clear path for a do over. I have serious questions about what would happen. again for your bbenefit lets say a special election is somehow the courts remedy even though they have no legal standing or written law to justify it. what about all legislation written into law by the false winner? what about those that are sure it is fake news? can you see how this could be a destructive force?
Click to expand...

REMEDY.

And like I said, it would become a mockery of fair elections. Every one of them would be claimed to be manipulated. Sore losers on both sides. That's the point of the post you didn't "get."

If you let the court see the evidence, they can REMEDY the situation. If that be a demand for a REVOTE, that's the REMEDY.
 
Get off these voter machines and vote by mail.
 
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/election2k/pbc_tampering.htm

Statistical evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt that 19,120 Presidential race ballots were destroyed by deliberate double-punching ballots in Palm Beach County FL with a "second punch" for Al Gore or Pat Buchanan. (In 1996, an additional 15,000 Dole and Perot ballots were destroyed by double-punching presidential ballots in Palm Beach County, FL. *)​

19,120 double punched ballots — all in one race, with "errors" only occurring two Presidential races against Republican opposition — is 33,000 "too many" to be an accident.​

Isn't that an example of a manipulated election?
 
the mockery part I get , trust is lost and the system crumbles, what happens to the legislation? what happens to those that see "fake news" everywhere? what about the military during the turn around? who governs while the election is set up? the constitutiondoesn't say the courts can invalidate the election results or what would happen next. I am sure there are other questions to the next step even if an election is the mandate of the court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top