1. California and its top-two system probably skewed the results since the two Democratic candidates combined for over 12 million votes. Had that race mirrored the Presidential race then the gap would’ve probably been around 2-3 million (hmm, similar to the national popular vote).

2. The 666 USA minority rule Senate is one of, if not THE, most ANTI-Democracy legislative bodies now in Western Civilization.

   The Democracy folks caved into the EVIL demands of the small and slave States in the top secret 1787 Federal Convention — i.e. the 3 EVIL minority rule systems in the Fed regime — H. Reps, Senate, Electoral College.

   The living are now paying the price for having such EVIL schemes by the DEAD hacks in 1787.

   Thus — what are the votes for the 51 lowest Elephant hack Senators as a percentage of the total votes in the 2012-2014-2016 Senators cycle ???

   Answer — some major work with the data — since the rotted governments do NOT report total voters in many States.

3. Richard,

   Based on the precedent of the 1972 presidential election in Pima County, Arizona; shouldn’t Trump and Pence be considered to have received 8.8 million votes in California? See California’s certificate of ascertainment and compare to that of New York.

4. The 1972 Pima and Yavapai County ballots were faulty and advised voters to vote for president on one part of the ballot, and then invited them to vote for independent presidential electors pledged to Linda Jenness in another part of the ballot. The Secretary of State’s official election returns counted those double votes, so the Socialist Workers Party got a big windfall.

   That isn’t the same thing as what happened in California in 2016, although it is close, and it is an interesting thought.

   I had always heard a state court forced the Arizona Secretary of State to count those votes for the SWP but I could never find any record of any such court case. Do you know? I would be very pleased if you do.

5. Do those totals include votes for the two Democratic Senatorial candidates from California?

6. Yes.

7. This is all I can find:

   http://www.laweekly.com/news/early-and-often-2132686

   It was written in 2000, and even then most of the people were dead or had no recollection, and it was based on newspaper articles which might have left out details.

   It appears that the primary concern may have been that the votes could not be counted for Nixon and McGovern, and since that didn’t effect the overall result, it was more important that voters not be have their vote for President discarded.

   OK, I did some further research, and found the issues of the Arizona Daily Star and the Tucson Daily Citizen for that period.

   Apparently, it was known in October that there was a problem with the ballots, and David O’Hern, the person in charge of elections in Pima County, claimed that Rose Mofford, who was Assistant Secretary of State at the time had told him it was OK (Rose Mofford later became Secretary of State, and Governor, so may have been a named defendant in various ballot-access cases?). Mofford denied ever discussing double voting with O’Hern.

   Pima County used punch card ballots, so there was no way for a voter to easily detect an overvote. Since Arizona elects two representatives per legislative district without position, the vote-counting machines may have been programmed to detect overvotes in a vote-for-two race. But it appears that Pima County treated the presidential election as two races. While it would be straightforward to custom-program detection of overvotes, it might have been impossible if dealing with vendor-supplied ballot setup.

   By election night, the newspapers were already reporting the problem, and quoting the Attorney General and Secretary of State as saying that the votes could not be counted. Meanwhile, O’Hern was saying that Assistant SOS Mofford had told him it was OK, and the Pima County Attorney, Rose Silver, argued that it didn’t matter since the Socialist Worker Party did not have a presidential candidate. They also quoted two of the Socialist Worker electors, whose responses may have been tongue-in-cheek.

   By Thursday after the election, the Attorney General and Pima County Attorney Silver had agreed that the votes should be counted, under a legal principle that though there were violations of state law, they had not caused any harm. Silver also said that a recount would have cost $5,000 to $10,000. AG opinions are archived, but I could not find any opinions issued to either Silver or the Secretary of State dealing with the issue (I did find an opinion issued to State Senator Sandra Day O’Connor, who was first elected in 1972, who was asking about whether ratification of a constitutional amendment had to be submitted to the governor).

   By Thursday, news coverage had moved on to the county having failed to count all the votes from one precinct. O’Hern claimed that some ballots had been left at the bottom of a ballot box under unused ballots and other papers. The election supervisor for the precinct said that the ballots had been removed from the wooden ballot box, placed in metal containers which were sealed and placed back in the wooden ballot box. The box was locked, and the key dropped into a slot in the box. This was done in front of 22 other election clerks. The precinct, the largest in the county had been given two metal boxes. The election supervisor said that O’Hern had called her and suggested that for future elections that she place a note that there were two metal boxes, and she had agreed to do it. O’Hern then went and made up another story for the press that since the ballots are in a metal box, they don’t ordinarily go ranging through the bottom of the ballot box. O’Hern also said that the reason names were misspelled was because there was insufficient time to proofread.

   About a month and half after the election, O’Hern resigned, saying that board of supervisors had not exercised “any fairness in my behalf”.

   O’Hern was a named defendant in a ballot-access lawsuit stemming from the 1972 primary election. The supervisor districts had been redistricted earlier in the year. A would-be candidate, David Risner, rented a duplex in the district, and then circulated petitions on his own behalf. A resident of the district, who was also the campaign manager of an opponent, then challenged the petition in court. The challenge was not based on residency to be supervisor, but rather residency to certify petitions. The court ruled that residency was based on a combination of intent and conduct, and that Risner had never exhibited any conduct beyond renting the duplex (he never slept there, he never changed the utilities, phones, never changed the address, etc.). In a bizarre twist, an article about Risner’s candidacy noted that he was divorced, but that his four children were enjoying spending the summer at his new residence in the district.

   Since the action sought was to keep Risner off the ballot, O’Hern and Pima County were defendants. I don’t know that they actively defended the suit, but it appears that they were represented in the appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court (Dennis DeConcini as Pima County Attorney).

   The Secretary of State said that he would accept the canvass from Pima County if the board of supervisors approved it (it appears that the board of supervisors is (was?) the county canvassing authority. It appears they were content with approving what were technically overvotes. It wouldn’t have been legally supportable that voters had not intended to vote for the Socialist Worker electors, when they had punched the ballot not once, but six time. So the only way to zero out the Socialist Worker votes would have been to recount the ballots, and zero out votes for Nixon, McGovern, and Schmitz. It is just as legally plausible that the voters intended to support the Socialist Workers, but were confused by the ballot, and voted for Nixon by mistake.

   Sometime after the election, the Secretary of State, declared that while the votes for elector were valid, they could not be considered to be votes for President. The Socialist Workers petition was not filed prior to the primary, so it had not qualified as a party, and did not have a presidential candidate, but the electors had qualified under a different statute. Conceivably, there could have been a subsequent court action that ruled that the Socialist Workers should have qualified as a party – but you would know of that if there were such a case, no?

   The Arizona Secretary of State’s online canvasses only go back to 1974. The FEC’s vote publications appear to start with 1984. The Clerk of the House of Representatives only list presidential electors by party for all states.

   It is probably not accurate to claim that the votes in Arizona were for Jenness, who in case was not qualified to be President due to her only being 31.

8. I hope to see the tally of all votes for U. S. Representative after the first of the year.
   Thanks for the great work you do, Richard.

9. How many of the 34 Senators win HACKS got a majority of the TOTAL votes in the States involved ???

   Folks should do the 3rd grade gerrymander math for the USA Reps and State legislatures in their States and try and wake up the brain dead media —

   Example –
   99 pack/crack gerrymander districts

   Votes PctTot for each of following –

   50 lowest win of Gang A – will be around 25-32 percent in most regimes = OLIGARCHY
   + X high win of Gang A
   = subtotal All win of Gang A
   + Y win of Gang B
   = Subtotal All 99 win all gangs — will be about 60-65 percent
   + All losers
   = Subtotal all candidates
   + Nonvotes
   = Total Votes – or highest office total – Prez/Gov

   Distorted results due to ANY districts with NOT 1 D and 1 R.

10. Demo Rep should just be banned from commenting, it makes the site unreadable. He also loves the two party system.

11. Folks with any brain cells may be able to note —

    P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.

    P.R. means having a multi-party regime — see the MANY foreign nations now having P.R. and multi-parties in their legislative bodies — i.e. coalition stuff needed to enact new laws.

12. An example of the minority rule gerrymander ROT in the USA — beautiful CA —

    CA ASSEMBLY 2017-2018 2 YEAR TERM
    80 PACK/CRACK GERRYMANDER DISTRICTS
    POLITICAL CONCENTRATION CAMPS

    VOTES PCT

    3,770,563 *25.8 41 LOW D* WIN
    2,091,247 14.3 + 14 HIGH D WIN
    5,861,810 *40.1 = 55 D WIN
    2,724,271 18.6 + 25 R WIN
    8,586,081 58.8 = 80 WIN
    4,396,310 30.1 + ALL 79 LOSERS
    12,982,391 88.9 = 159 SUBTOTAL
    1,628,118 11.1 + NONVOTES
    14,610,509 100.0 = TOTAL VOTERS

    * ANTI-DEMOCRACY MINORITY RULE PERCENTAGES

    REMEDY – Proportional Representation

    DATA – CA Statement of Vote Nov 2016 election

    The USA Senate math would be really bad if all/most of the small State hack Senators were Ds or Rs —
    in the current 33-33-34 cycle —
    but there has been somewhat of a balance for many years between large, middle and small States —
    so about 25-30 percent of the votes also control the USA Senate.

13. “Losing since before capital letters were invented.”

    –Demo Rep

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.