Saturday 21 January 2017

A Collector's Item: "@POTUS hasn't tweeted yet"


A genuine rarity at 4:33 am Sydney Time - a Trump Twitter account with no tweets 😉


UPDATE

The crowd in that Twiitter account banner? 

Not from Trump's 20 January 2017 inauguration - not even from any of the rallies he held during the 2016 presidential election campaign.

No, it happens to be a Getty image from Barack Obama's 2009 inauguration, taken down from Trump's @POTUS once social media had noticed.

Just because it is beautiful........(21)


Neon Cuckoo Bee Thyreus nitidulu 
Australian native bee
gardeningwithangus.com.au

Mark Your Calendar: 40th Grafton Truck Show on 10 June 2017


Clarence Valley Council, media release, 11 January 2017:



Big rigs for big 40th show in 2017

The Grafton Truck Drivers Social Club has been going strong since 1977 and therefore this year will be the 40th Grafton Truck Show.

Club president Adrienne Dentler said, "the club was very happy to receive funding from Clarence Valley Council's Community Initiatives Program at the end of 2016."

"The funds will be used to help pay for the annual parade at the Grafton Truck Show on June 10, 2017 and this year will be a big one. The day will include the usual free kids activities and judging with some exciting changes this year including entertainment by country music legend, Adam Eckersley", Adrienne said.

For information about the Grafton Truck Drivers Social Club, please contact Adrienne Dentler via email graftontruckclub@gmail.com or phone 0407 815 026.

Any not-for-profit organisations or individuals wanting more information on funding opportunities through the Community Initiatives Program are welcome to contact the Community Projects Officer by email sammy.lovejoy@clarence.nsw.gov.au or phone 6642 0957.

The next funding round opens on February 13, 2017 for projects/initiatives from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018.

Release ends.

Friday 20 January 2017

Centrelink's monumental clusterf*ck continues


As the Turnbull Government response grows more heavy-handed, community resistance grows......
Crikey, 19 January 2017:
Just as Australians were ringing in the new year and the public campaign against Centrelink's massively scaled-up debt recovery program was beginning to pick up steam, a legislative change removed a time limit that meant a certain number of welfare debts used to expire.
Previously, unlike other debts to the government, notably those owed to the Australian Taxation Office, welfare debts would lapse if no action was taken to recover them in six years.
Agencies like Centrelink could fairly easily restart the six-year limit, by taking a basic action like opening the client's record and doing a basic review, but nonetheless it resulted in some debts expiring because the agency did not have enough resources to pursue them all.
From January 1 it was removed entirely by the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Act, shortly after the government asked Centrelink to identify and recover hundreds of thousands more debts than it ever has before by significantly decreasing the amount of administrative effort spent on each one.
The various pieces of legislation amended by the act now say welfare debt recovery actions can take place "at any time" and according to the act's explanatory memorandum:
"This will align social welfare debt recovery with the arrangements applied by other government agencies involved in the recovery of Commonwealth debts, where there is no such limitation.
" … Removing this limitation will prevent debts from 'ageing' out of recovery, and will improve the ability to recover old debts. Debt recovery will be able to commence at any time."
The Mandarin has heard a significant number of relatively senior Department of Human Services staff are under the impression that the removal of the six-year limit has opened up a very large number of potential debts to recovery action that were previously off-limits.
There's apparently a view in the agency that now there is nothing stopping the automated compliance program from going back through tax and welfare records "indefinitely" to find new debts to raise.
But an independent expert in social security law said this was not quite right; the six-year limit only ever applied to debts after they were raised. The clock started when the agency became aware of the debt (or when it reasonably should have — for example, if it was notified of an overpayment but failed to actually raise a debt for six years or more).
The legal interpretation was that Centrelink could always chase a debt from any time in the past — provided it could argue there was no reasonable way to have found out more than six years prior — but in practice it always raised more debts than it could recover, so it prioritised the biggest ones and did not go looking for new ones especially hard.
The Mandarin also understands that debts that expired after no action was taken for more than six years before the change on January 1 cannot be resurrected.
The further back Centrelink goes looking for past discrepancies between taxable income and support payments, the less chance there is that the people advised of potential debts will be able to produce payslips or other records to prove they were not overpaid.
The National Social Security Rights Network (previously the Welfare Rights Network) opposed the removal of the six-year expiry date. In a recent statement, it says a lot of people are contacting it in distress because they do not realise "the system does not necessarily require people to have documentation from many years ago" and think that "without it they cannot provide the information being sought" by Centrelink. The body recommends:
"If it continues, the system should be applied to the most recent financial years first. Many people would be able to readily check information against their recent records, reducing their distress and anxiety about the process. This would also give more time for Centrelink and other stakeholders to assess how the system is working and make a considered decision whether it is fair and reasonable to roll out for earlier years."
In any case, DHS spokesperson Hank Jongen told The Mandarin there are no plans to check the records any further back than six years ago:
"As part of the compliance measures announced in the 2015-16 budget, 2015-16 MYEFO and in the 2016-2017 MYEFO, compliance reviews will not be undertaken prior to 2010-11 financial year."

The Canberra Times, 19 January 2017:
Centrelink is deliberately ripping-off thousands of Australians caught up in its data matching "robo-debt" program, with managers telling public servants at the agency to enforce debts they know are bogus, according to explosive new claims…..
Pensioners and other struggling members of the community are being hounded for "recovery fees" unfairly added on top of their debts by Centrelink, according to the whistleblower's statement, published on Thursday by left leaning advocacy group Get-Up and Centrelink's main workplace union the CPSU.
The union says it has independently verified some, but not all, of the whistleblower's allegations.
The insider, who has defied public service bosses' threats on leaking against the program, also alleges that Centrelink managers are well aware that bogus debts are being pursued and are ignoring pleas from compliance staff to take a fair approach to the debt recovery process.
"We are struggling with our consciences and pushing back against our leaders daily," the whistleblower wrote.
"We are telling the...helpdesk that what we are doing is wrong.
"I see these reviews every day and I am horrified at what I am being directed to do."
Centrelink has been contacted for comment on Thursday morning.
The insiders alleges that the rip-offs operate in five main ways:
Doubling income​, where a person's entire income from the same employer is counted twice, creating an "overpayment".
Non-assessable Income, where​ money that should not be counted as assessable income by Centrelink is counted and overpayments raised against the victim.
Fictitious payments​; where system generates debts based on payments that Centrelink never made. The whistleblower alleges it is even possible to have a debt claim larger than a person's total Centrelink payment.
False recovery fees; recovery fees are being regularly applied when they shouldn't and can be much larger than the set fee of 10 per cent.  
Corrupted review​; compliance officers are directed not to fix these errors, even when there is evidence, and their work is rejected when they do.
But Centrelink media spokesman Hank Jongen denied the accusations in a statement posted online on Thursday, saying the claims about doubling income, non-assessable income, fictitious payments, false recovery fees and corrupted reviews were all incorrect.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 17 January 2017:
Public servants at Centrelink have been threatened with disciplinary action or even criminal prosecution as their bosses at the welfare agency try to stem the flow of internal leaks about the agency's "robo-debt" campaign.

Several workers have gone public about the debt recovery debacle since the controversy emerged last month and now Centrelink's parent department, Human Services, has issued a stark warning to its 36,000 staff about the consequences of leaking.

The department, which has gone to extraordinary lengths and expense in the past to track down and crush internal dissent, issued its latest warning on Tuesday after several media stories featuring insider accounts of the data matching program's failings.

Excerpt from whistleblower letter released by GetUp! on 19 January 2017:


The letter can be found at:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7cszry1mjjjsndj/2029-img-113185553-0001.pdf?dl=0

GetUp! creates FraudStop:
:
                        Click on image to enlarge

Get started here.

#NotMyDebt: "Treating Australians like crap is going to get you crap poll results"


The “false debt” disaster rolls on, with the Turnbull Government attempting some window dressing in the hope of reversing bad polling.

News.com.au, 16 January 2016:

AN Australian of the Year finalist has also become embroiled in the Centrelink debt recovery debacle, after being sent an incorrect debt notice due to the automatic debt recovery system.

Queensland medical researcher Dr Janet Hammill, who works voluntarily and lives off the age pension, was sent a debt notice for $7600, The Guardian reports.


The 76-year-old had reportedly received a $26,000 research over parts of 2011 and 2012, which she fully reported to Centrelink at the time.

But the system appears to have averaged the grant across 2012 and deemed her overpaid.

But Centrelink’s automated debt recovery system appears to have averaged the grant across all 26 fortnights of 2012, before deeming her to have been significantly overpaid.

Hammill said she had struggled to contact anyone at Centrelink.

“You feel so helpless, I mean for heaven’s sakes, you can look through my CV and see that I’m not helpless,” Hammill told The Guardian.

“But this puts you into another category of disempowerment. I can just imagine somebody who is not computer literate or is just managing to get by day to day, it’s just been so terribly frustrating,” she said.

“They made me feel as though I’m some sort of cheat, and I haven’t had an income since April 2012.”

Her story comes after whistleblowers revealed the “true horror” of the Centrelink debt recovery debacle, after a new poll showed the Turnbull Government took a hit over the ongoing saga.

A number of former Centrelink staff, who allegedly left over the debt recovery fallout, have written to independent MP Andrew Wilkie with reports that a high number of clients are suicidal over debt notices.

Other former workers have told of being given daily quotas of debt notices and being urged to work overtime and compete to haul in the most debts.

One single mother has told of having to start repaying an incorrect debt notice for $11,800 while she challenges the request.

Mr Wilkie has today written to the Commonwealth Ombudsman to report evidence from the whistleblowers, which he claims have described the “true horror” of what’s happening behind closed doors.

His letter, published on his website, outlines the insight of former staff members, including that employees are discouraged from questioning debts and from pausing debt repayments if customers are in financial hardship.

A “high” number of callers were contemplating taking their own lives, it said.

“The system’s a complete dud and must be fixed or binned,” Mr Wilkie said.

“Every day new cases of bogus debts are coming into my office which has received hundreds of complaints from people who have recounted deeply disturbing stories about Centrelink’s debt hunt.”

The Sydney Morning Herald, 16 January 2017:

Centrelink public servants who ask too many questions about their agency's controversial "robo-debt" recovery effort are being "managed" out of debt recovery units, according to independent MP Andrew Wilkie.

The Tasmanian independent also alleges public servants are being played against each other by managers, competing for the highest daily quota of debt notices.

But Centrelink is unhappy with Mr Wilkie's letter to Ombudsman Colin Neave, with the agency saying on Monday the the allegations are inaccurate or misleading. 

Centrelink says there are no quotas and that Mr Wilkie's accusations about the management of mental health issues among clients were overblown. 

Mr Wilkie said the former public servants had reported problems with suicidal clients and a breakdown in the systems that were supposed to support them.

"The number of customers who report feeling suicidal is high," Mr Wilkie wrote.

"It has been reported to me that that over a period of days there was an error in the system so that calls transferred to social workers were instead transferred back to casual workers on the general phone line that have no training in suicide prevention."

The Guardian, 16 January 2016:

Asked in the ReachTel poll how “errors with the Centrelink automated debt recovery system” affected their vote, 49.8% said it made them less likely to vote for the Coalition compared with 14.4% who said they were more likely to and 35.8% who said it would not impact their vote.

Asked which should be the Turnbull government’s priority, a large majority (82.2%) nominated cracking down on international tax avoidance, compared with recovering debts from Centrelink overpayments (17.8%).

Respondents were asked given the “significant errors” in the system whether individuals should have to “defend themselves which may include accessing pay slips and employment records from up to five years ago”.

Most said the burden of proof should be on Centrelink (78.6%) not the individual (21.4%).

The poll was taken on Thursday after a week of revelations of taxpayer funded travel claims by ministers and MPs to attend sports events and Sussan Ley’s trips to the Gold Coast including one on which she bought a $795,000 apartment and two to attend New Year’s Eve events with multimillionaire Coalition donor Sarina Russo.


GetUp’s campaigns director, Mark Connelly, said the poor poll result was “no surprise” given revelations government ministers had been spending taxpayer funds on chartered flights and to go to polo matches “while sending tens of thousands of false debt-threat letters to everyday Australians”.

“Treating Australians like crap is going to get you crap poll results.”

ABC News, 16 December 2016:

The automated program — which compares Centrelink and Australian Taxation Office records — has issued 170,000 notifications since July with thousands of Australians incorrectly told they have outstanding debts.

After weeks of public criticism, Human Services Minister Alan Tudge has told his department to ensure welfare recipients can launch an internal review of their payments before debt proceedings are launched.

Disability pensioner Justin Burns last week told the ABC he disputed his debt and requested a review, but was still being forced to pay $40 a fortnight from his pension to repay the debt while the review was underway.

"I have had to borrow money off my parents, I have had to borrow money off my friends," he said.

"I thought, 'Holy, you know what, I don't believe I owe this money at all'."

Mr Tudge will also ensure Centrelink clients are informed of discrepancies in their accounts before being contacted by debt collectors.

"One of the issues has been that on some occasions, the address that Centrelink has on file hasn't been updated, so the first a person might hear about this is when there is a debt collector on their doorstop," Mr Tudge told 2GB radio on Monday.

"We are fixing that problem by ensuring that we use multiple different addresses, including a person's electoral roll address, to ensure they do get that letter and do get that opportunity to update their records."

Letters will now be sent by registered mail so Centrelink can track whether they have been received.

In some cases, the letter will be followed up with a phone call.

One client told the ABC they were contacted by debt collector Dun and Bradsheet about a $3,836 discrepancy, despite never being contacted by Centrelink.

Mr Tudge has also called on his department to simplify its language and ensure a contact number is printed on all notification letters, rather than being listed online.

Labor's shadow human services minister Linda Burney said the changes were a "stunning admission" given Mr Tudge's earlier claim the system was working.

"The system must be suspended until changes to make it fair are applied to everyone — that means those currently paying disputed debts should have the review completed before they are forced to pay," she said.

Unfortunately for Mr. Turnbull on 17 January 2017 The Sydney Morning Herald also carried news of his government's intention to expand this flawed debt recovery scheme:

The Coalition government is going to target more than 3 million of elderly and disabled Australians with its controversial Centrelink "robo-debt" campaign, Parliamentary documents show.

The mid-year economic forecast tables published last week shows the government has booked savings of $1.1 billion from data-matching the aged pension and another $400 million from the disability support pension.

The move will bring more than 3 million more Australians into the sights of the data-matching program, which uses an automated system to match information held by Centrelink and the Australian Taxation Office and calculate overpayments.

But the policy has been beset by errors and has been hugely controversial with many of those targeted for debt recovery saying they are being hounded by commercial debt collectors for money that they do not owe…..

The data matching effort so far has been concentrated overwhelmingly on mostly young people who have received the dole or Youth Allowance, although evidence is emerging that students have also been hit heavily.

But the supporting tables to the government's mid-year financial and fiscal outlook, published on Thursday by the Parliamentary Budget office, reveal that Coalition policy is to massively extend the data matching effort to the more than 2.5 million age pensioners and about 800,000 disability support pensioners.

"Relative to the 2016-2017 budget, policy decisions are expected to decrease expenses on the age pension by $1.1 billion to 2019-2020 primarily due to measures to enhance the integrity of social welfare payments including expanding and extending data-matching activities with the Australian taxation office," the document reads.

The papers also reveal that the government believes it will slash spending on the disability support pension using the same methods.

Want to know who the world can blame for what is occurring in America today?


Today at noon Washington DC time (4am Saturday 21 January Sydney time) this profoundly ignorant man, Donald John Trump, will be sworn in as 45th President of the United States of America.

Business Insider, 8 November 2016

This is occurring because one month previously on 19 December 2016 the U.S. Electoral College1 met to confirm Donald Trump by vote as the President2despite Trump losing the popular vote at the 8 November presidential election by over 2.8 million votes.

Electoral College places are allotted to states proportionate to each state's population, each place can only be filled by a person resident congressional district in that state and a person is barred from a place at the college if he/she holds an office of profit or trust in that state. Members generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our [U.S.] history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.


Fair Vote states that these seven electors were Democratic electors David Bright (ME - Bernie Sanders), Muhammad Abdurrahman (MN - Bernie Sanders), Michael Baca (CO - John Kasich), Esther John (WA - Colin Powell), Levi Guerra (WA - Colin Powell), Bret Chiafalo (WA - Colin Powell), Robert Satiacum (WA - Faith Spotted Eagle), David Mulinix (HI - Bernie Sanders) and two Republican electors Chris Suprun (TX - John Kasich) and Bill Greene (TX - Ron Paul).

Members of the U.S. Electoral College indicating Democratic or Republican (GOP) affiliation, according to a 19 December 2016 Politico provisional list3:

ALABAMA (GOP)
1. Frank Burt, Jr. Appears to hold an office of profit in the state of Alabama
2. Will Sellers
3. Jim Wilson 
Appears to hold an elected office of in the state of Alabama
4. Tim Wadsworth
5. Elbert Peters
6. Mary Sue McClurkin
7. Bob Cusanelli
8. Perry Hooper Jr.
9. Grady Thornton

ALASKA (GOP)
10. Sean Parnell
11. Jacqueline Tupou
12. Carolyn Leman


ARIZONA (GOP)
13. Bruce Ash
14. Walter Begay
15. Sharon Giese
16. Robert Graham
17. Alberto Gutier
18. Jerry Hayden
19. Carole Joyce
20. Jane Lynch
21. Foster Morgan
22. James O'Connor
23. Edward Robson

ARKANSAS (GOP)
24. Jonelle Fulmer
25. Jonathan Barnett
26. Keith Gibson No r
egistered voter of that name in Arkansas
27. Sharon Wright
28. Tommy Land Does not appear to live in Congressional District he is representing
29. John Nabholz

CALIFORNIA (DEM)
30. Dustin Reed
31. John Ryan
32. Faith Garamendi
33. Kathleen Scott
34. Timothy Farley
35. Analea Patterson
36. Janine Bera
37. Denise Wells
38. Mark Headley
39. Susan Eggman
40. James Donahue
41. Christine Pelosi
42. Saundra Andrews
43. Mark Olbert
44. Donna Ireland
45. Steven Diebert
46. Steve Spinner
47. Celine Purcell
48. Javier Gonzalez
49. Vinzenz Koller
50. Ana Huerta
51. Stephen Natoli
52. Andres Ramos
53. Gail Teton-Landis
54. Natalie Fortman
55. Shawn Terris
56. David Warmuth
57. Laurence Zakson
58. Nury Martinez
59. Sheldon Malchicoff
60. Cathy Morris
61. Benjamin Cardenas
62. Edward Buck
63. Olivia Reyes-Becerra
64. Robert Torres
65. Priscilla Richardson
66. Gwen Moore
67. Jacki Cisneros
68. John MacMurray
69. Marie Torres
70. Jane Block
71. Andrew Krakoff
72. Karen Waters
73. Dorothy Vann
74. Sandra Aduna
75. Gregory Willenborg
76. Carmen Perez
77. Raymond Cordova
78. Francine Busby
79. Patrick Drinan
80. Christine Kehoe
81. Katherine Lyon
82. Shirley Weber
83. Eileen Feinstein Mariano
84. Laphonza Butler


COLORADO (DEM)
85. Terry Phillips
86. Mary Beth Corsentino
87. Jerad Sutton
88. Robert Nemanich
89. Amy Drayer
90. Ann Knollman
91. Sen. Rollie Heath
92. Hon. Polly Baca
93. Micheal Baca

CONNECTICUT (DEM)
94. Barbara Gordon
95. Ellen Nurse
96. Edward Piazza
97. Tyisha Walker
98. Christopher Rosario
99. Robert Godfrey
100. Steven Jones


DELAWARE (DEM)
101. Lynn Fuller
102. Lydia York
103. Linda Cavanaugh

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (DEM)
104. Anita Bonds
105. Jack Evans
106. Franklin Garcia

FLORIDA (GOP)
107. Ade Aderibigbe
108. Larry Ahern Appears to hold elected office in Florida
109. Brian Ballard
110. Kristy Banks
111. Michael Barnett
112. LizBeth Benacquisto 
Appears to hold elected office in Florida
113. Robin Bernstein
114. Pam Bondi 
Appears to hold elected office in Florida
115. John Browning Appears to hold an office of profit in Florida
116. Sharon Day
117. Dena DeCamp
118. Nick D
119. Jeremy Evans
120. John Falconetti 

121. Peter Feaman
122. Kat Gates-Skipper
123. Joe Gruters 
Appears to hold elected office in Florida
124. Debbie Hannifan
125. Blaise Ingoglia 
Appears to hold elected office in Florida
126. Tony Ledbetter
127. Mike Moberley
128. Susan Moore
129. Joe Negron 
Appears to hold elected office in Florida
130. Clint Pate 
Appears to hold an office of profit in Florida
131. Ray Rodrigues 
Appears to hold elected office in Florida
132. Carlos Trujillo 
Appears to hold elected office in Florida
133. Robert Watkins
134. Susie Wiles
135. Christian Ziegler

GEORGIA
136. Bruce Allen Azevedo
137. Brian K Burdette Appears to hold an office of profit in Georgia
138. Lott Harris Dill
139. John David Elliott
140. James Randolph Evans
141. Bobbie D. Frantz
142. Linda D. Herren
143. Rachel Blackstone Little
144. Deborah M. McCord
145. Michael Neil McNeely
146. Mary L. Padgett
147. Neil L. Pruitt
148. Joshua Kirk Shook
149. Frank B. Strickland
150. Baoky Nguyen Vu (resigned, will be replaced by alternate)
151. John B. White

HAWAII (DEM)
152. John Bickel
153. Janice Bond
154. Marie (Dolly) Strazar
155. David Mulinix

IDAHO (GOP) All 4 votes irregularly given
156. Jennifer Locke
157. Melinda Smyser
158. Layne Bangerter
159. Caleb Lakey

ILLINOIS (DEM)*
160. Toni Preckwinkle
161. Carrie Austin
162. Silvana Tabares
163. Jesus "Chuy" Garcia
164. Pam Cullerton
165. Nancy Shepardson
166. Vera Davis
167. William Marovitz
168. Barbara Flynn Currie
169. John R. Daley
170. Michelle Mussman
171. Lauren Beth Gash
172. Kevin Duffy Blackburn
173. Jerry Costello
174. Carol Ammons
175. Mark Guethle
176. Flint Taylor
177. John Nelson
178. Don Johnston
179. Shirley McCoombs

INDIANA (GOP) All 11 votes irregularly given
180. Stephanie Beckley
181. Kevin Steen
182. Kelly Mitchell
183. Daniel Bortner
184. Laura Campbell
185. Jeff Cardwell
186. Donald Hayes
187. Randall Kirkpatrick
188. Edwin Simcox
189. Ethan Manning
190. Chuck Williams Does not appear to live in the Congressional District he represents

IOWA (GOP)
191. James Whitmer
192. Don Kass
193. Dylan Keller
194. Alan Braun
195. Kurt Brown
196. Polly Granzow

KANSAS (GOP) All 6 votes irregularly given
197. Ashley J. McMillan
198. Helen Van Etten
199. Mark Kahrs Appears to hold an elected office in Kansas
200. Ron Estes
201. Clayton L. Barker
202. Kelly Arnold

KENTUCKY (GOP)
203. Jim Skaggs
204. David Disponett
205. Robert Duncan
206. Michael Carter
207. Scott Lasley
208. Walter Reichert
209. Mary Singleton
210. Troy Sheldon

LOUISIANA (GOP)
211. Chris D. Trahan Does not appear to live in the Congressional District he represents
212. Lloyd A. Harsch
213. Charles L “Charlie” Buckels
214. Louis R. Avallone
215. Kay Kellogg Katz
216. Lennie H. Rhys
217. Garrett C. Monti
218. Steven “Scott “ Wilfong

MAINE (3 D, 1 R)
219. Diane Denk
220. David Bright
221. Sam Shapiro
222. Richard Bennett (R)

MARYLAND (DEM)
223. Lesley Israel
224. Robert Leonard
225. Lillian Holmes
226. Salome Peters
227. Hagner Mister
228. Claudia Martin
229. Courtney Watson
230. Karen Britto
231. Susan Ness
232. Wayne Rogers

MASSACHUSETTS (DEM)
233. Nazda Alam
234. Mary Gail Cokkinias
235. Marie Turley
236. Dori Dean
237. Donna Smith
238. Cheryl Cumings
239. Marc Pacheco
240. Curtis Lemay
241. Jason Palitsch
242. Paul Yorkis
243. Parwez Wahid

MICHIGAN (GOP) All 16 votes irregularly given
244. John Haggard
245. Jack Holmes
Does not appear to live in Michigan
246. Kelly Mitchell
247. Judy Rapanos
248. Henry Hatter
249. Robert Weitt
250. Wyckham Seelig
251. Ross Ensign
252. Michael Banerian
253. Brian Fairbrother
254. Ken Crider
255. Mary Vaughn
256. Jim Rhoades
257. William Rauwerdink
258. Hank Fuhs
259. Joseph Guzman

MINNESOTA (Dem)
260. Fred Knudson
261. Roger Gehrke
262. Marge Hoffa
263. Raymond Hess
264. Muhammed Abdurrahman
265. Betsy O’Berry
266. Mike Wammer
267. Mary Murphy
268. Jules Goldstein
269. Sherrie Pugh


MISSISSIPPI (GOP)
270. Ann Hebert
271. Joe F. Sanderson Jr.
272. Bradley R. White
273. J. Kelley Williams
274. William G. Yates Jr.
275. Wirt A. Yerger, Jr.

MISSOURI (GOP)
276. Tim Dreste
277. Janice DeWeese
278. Hector Maldonado
279. Sherry Kuttenkuler
280. Casey Crawford
281. Tom Brown
282. Cherry Warren
283. Scott Clark
284. Al Rotskoff
285. Susie Johnson


MONTANA (GOP)
286. Thelma Baker
287. Nancy Ballance
288. Dennis Scranton


NEBRASKA (GOP) All 5 votes irregularly given
289. Phil Berlin
290. John Dinkel
291. Chuck Conrad
292. Craig Safranek
293. Paul Burger


NEVADA (Dem)
294. Dayananda Prabhu Rachakonda
295. Larry Jackson
296. Joetta Brown
297. Paul Catha II
298. Greg Gardella
299. Teresa Benitez-Thompson

NEW HAMPSHIRE (Dem)
300. Bev Hollingworth
301. Terie Norelli
302. Carol Shea Porter
303. Dudley Dudley

NEW JERSEY (Dem)
304. Alaa R Abdelaziz
305. Tahsina Ahmed
306. Anthony Cureton
307. Lizette Delgado-Polanco
308. Edward Farmer
309. Christopher D. James
310. Leroy J Jones Jr
311. Retha R Onitiri
312. Marlene Prieto
313. Ronald G Rios
314. Hetty M Rosenstein
315. Kelly Stewart Maer
316. Mary Ann Wardlow
317. Heriberta Loretta Winters

NEW MEXICO (DEM)
318. Lorraine Spradling
319. Edward Torres
320. Noyola Archibeque
321. John Padilla
322. Roxanne Allen

NEW YORK (DEM)
323. William J. Clinton
324. Andrew M. Cuomo
325. Kathy C. Hochul
326. Thomas P. DiNapoli
327. Eric T. Schneiderman
328. Carl E. Heastie
329. Andrea Stewart-Cousins
330. Bill de Blasio
331. Letitia A. James
332. Scott M. Stringer
333. Melissa Mark-Viverito
334. Byron W. Brown
335. Christine C. Quinn
336. Basil A. Smikle, Jr.
337. Melissa Sklarz
338. Mario F. Cilento
339. Rhonda Weingarten
340. George K. Gresham
341. Daniel F. Donohue
342. Stuart H. Appelbaum
343. Gary S. LaBarbera
344. Lovely A. Warren
345. Stephanie A. Miner
346. Katherine M. Sheehan
347. Anastasia M. Somoza
348. Sandra Ung
349. Ruben Diaz, Jr.
350. Hazel L. Ingram
351. Rachel D. Gold

NORTH CAROLINA (GOP)
352. Linda Harper Does not appear to live in Congressional District she represents
353. Charles Staley 
Does not appear to live in Congressional District he represents
354. Karen Kozel 
Does not appear to live in Congressional District she represents
355. Martha Jenkins
356. Celeste Stanley
357. Donald Webb 
Does not appear to live in Congressional District he represents
358. Robert Muller
359. Jennifer Dunbar
360. Andrea Arterburn
361. Glenn Pinckney Sr. 
Does not appear to live in Congressional District he represents
362. Mark Delk
363. David Speight  
Does not appear to live in Congressional District he represents
364. Ann Sullivan 
Does not appear to live in Congressional District she represents
365. Lee Green
366. David Smuski

NORTH DAKOTA (GOP)
367. Duane Mutch
368. John Olson
369. Ronald Carlisle

OHIO (GOP) All 18 votes irregularly given
370. Alex Triantafilou
371. Mary Anne Christie
372. Cory Schottenstein
373. Jim Dicke II
374. Cheryl Blakely
375. Marilyn Ashcraft
376. Christina Hagan
377. Richard Jones
378. Tom Coyne
379. Judy Westbrock
380. Ralph King
381. Leonard Hubert
382. Tracey Winbush
383. James Wert
384. Brian Schottenstein
385. Curt Braden
386. LeeAnn Johnson
387. Ed Crawford

OKLAHOMA (GOP)
388. David Oldham
389. Teresa Turner
390. Mark Thomas
391. Bobby Cleveland
392. Laurie Beth
393. Charlie Potts
394. George Wiland

OREGON (DEM)
395. Frank James Dixon
396. Karen A. Packer
397. Austin Folnagy
398. Leon H. Coleman
399. Harry W. "Sam" Sappington III
400. Timothy Norman Powers Rowan
401. Laura Gillpatrick

PENNSYLVANIA (GOP) All 20 votes irregularly given
402. Robert Asher
403. Mary Barket
404. Robert Bozzuto
405. Theodore Christian
406. Michael Downing
407. Margaret Ferraro
408. Robert Gleason
409. Christopher Gleason
410. Joyce Haas
411. Ash Khare
412. James McErlane
413. Elstina Pickett
414. Patricia Poprik
415. Andrew Reilly
416. Carol Sides
417. Glora “Lee” Snover
418. Richard Stewart
419. Lawrence Tabas
420. Christine Toretti
421. Carolyn “Bunny” Welsh

RHODE ISLAND (DEM)
422. Clay Pell
423. Grace Diaz
424. L. Susan Weiner
425. Frank J. Montanaro

SOUTH CAROLINA (GOP)
426. Glenn McCall
427. Matt Moore
428. Terry Hardesty
429. Jim Ulmer
430. Brenda Bedenbaugh
431. Bill Conley
432. Shery Smith
433. Moye Graham
434. Jerry Rovner

SOUTH DAKOTA (GOP)
435. Dennis Daugaard
436. Matt Michels
437. Marty Jackley

TENNESSEE (GOP)
438. Joey Jacobs
439. Beth Scott Clayton Amos
440. Jason Mumpower
441. Susan Mills
442. Liz Holiway
443. Lynne Davis
444. Tom Lawless
445. Mike Callahan
446. Pat Allen
447. Shannon Hanes
448. Drew Daniel

TEXAS (GOP)
449. Marty Rhymes 
Does not appear to live in Congressional District she represents
450. Thomas Moon
451. Carol Sewell
452. John Harper
453. Sherrill Lenz
454. Nicholas Ciggelakis
455. William Hickman
456. Landon Estay
457. Rex Lamb
458. Rosemary Edwards
459. Matt Stringer
460. Shellie Surles
461. Melissa Juett Kalka
462. Kenneth Clark
463. Sandara Cararas
464. David Thackston
465. Robert Bruce
466. Marjorie Forster 
Does not appear to live in Congressional District she represents
467. Scott Mann
468. Marian Stanko
469. Curtis Nelson
470. Tina Gibson
471. Kendell Muenzler
472. Alexander Kim
473. Virginia Able
474. John Dillard
475. Thomas Knight
476. Marian Knowlton
477. Rex Teter
478. Stephen (Chris) Suprun Jr.
479. Jon Jewett
480. Susan Fischer
481. Loren Byers
482. William Lawrence Greene
483. Mary Lou Erben
484. Art Sisneros
485. Candace Noble
486. Fred Farias

UTAH (GOP)
487. Peter Greathouse
488. Jeremy Jenkins
489. Kris Kimball
490. Cherilyn Eagar
491. Chia-Chi Teng
492. Richard Snelgrove
VERMONT (DEM)
493. Peter Shumlin
494. Martha Allen
495. Tim Jerman

VIRGINIA (DEM)
496. James O’Connor
497. Vivian Paige
498. Delegate Lashrecse Aird
499. Bethany Johnston Rowland
500. Jasper Hendricks
501. Deb Fitzgerald
502. Harold Boyd
503. Ginny Peter
504. Jeanette Sarver
505. Kathy Stewart Shupe
506. Keith Scarborough
507. Susan Rowland
508. Terry Frye

WASHINGTON (DEM)
509. Varisha Khan
510. Bret Chiafolo
511. Ryleigh Ivey
512. Levi Guerra
513. Phillip Tyler
514. Julie Johnson
515. Chris Porter
516. Dan Carpita
517. Esther John
518. Eric Herde
519. Robert Satiacum
520. Elizabeth Caldwell

WEST VIRGINIA (GOP)
521. Ron Foster
522. Patrick Morrisey
523. Ann Urling
524. Mac Warner
525. Bill Cole

WISCONSIN (GOP) All 10 votes irregularly given
526. Steve King
527. Mary Buestrin
528. Kim Travis
529. Kim Babler
530. Brian Westrate
531. Brad Courtney
532. Kathy Kiernan
533. Dan Feyen
534. Jim Miller
535. Bill Berglund

WYOMING (GOP) All 3 votes irregularly given
536. Karl Allred
537. Bonnie Foster
538. Teresa Richards


1. The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.
The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress.
The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators. Read more about the allocation of electoral votes.
Under the 23rd Amendment of the Constitution, the District of Columbia is allocated 3 electors and treated like a state for purposes of the Electoral College. For this reason, in the following discussion, the word “state” also refers to the District of Columbia.
Each candidate running for President in your state has his or her own group of electors. The electors are generally chosen by the candidate’s political party, but state laws vary on how the electors are selected and what their responsibilities are. Read more about the qualifications of the Electors and restrictions on who the Electors may vote for.
The presidential election is held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. You help choose your state’s electors when you vote for President because when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate’s electors.
Most states have a “winner-take-all” system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of “proportional representation.” Read more about the allocation of Electors among the states and try to predict the outcome of the Electoral College vote.
After the presidential election, your governor prepares a “Certificate of Ascertainment” listing all of the candidates who ran for President in your state along with the names of their respective electors. The Certificate of Ascertainment also declares the winning presidential candidate in your state and shows which electors will represent your state at the meeting of the electors in December of the election year. Your state’s Certificates of Ascertainments are sent to the Congress and the National Archives as part of the official records of the presidential election. See the key dates for the 2016 election and information about the roles and responsibilities of state officials, the Office of the Federal Register and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and the Congress in the Electoral College process.
The meeting of the electors takes place on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December after the presidential election. The electors meet in their respective states, where they cast their votes for President and Vice President on separate ballots. Your state’s electors’ votes are recorded on a “Certificate of Vote,” which is prepared at the meeting by the electors. Your state’s Certificates of Votes are sent to the Congress and the National Archives as part of the official records of the presidential election. See the key dates for the 2016 election and information about the roles and responsibilities of state officials and the Congress in the Electoral College process.
Each state’s electoral votes are counted in a joint session of Congress on the 6th of January in the year following the meeting of the electors. Members of the House and Senate meet in the House chamber to conduct the official tally of electoral votes. See the key dates for the 2016 election and information about the role and responsibilities of Congress in the Electoral College process.
The Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States.
The President-Elect takes the oath of office and is sworn in as President of the United States on January 20th in the year following the Presidential election. [https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html]

2. The date for officially counting the electoral votes is fixed by law as January 6 following each presidential election.

3. Annotations in red reflect part of the contents of ELECTORAL VOTE OBJECTION PACKET, 4 January 2017.