The Electoral College Was Designed to Prevent Trump.

[boutons_deux]

Trump can still be stopped. The Founding Fathers foresaw just this catastrophe, and built a fail-safe into the Constitution. It’s called the Electoral College.

Alexander Hamilton was explicit: this mechanism was designed to ensure that

“the office of president will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

In short, it was designed to prevent just this situation: the rise of an unqualified demagogue like Donald Trump.

The requirement here is modest: ten Republican electors appalled at the prospect of a Trump presidency, and sufficiently courageous to vote accordingly, must be persuaded to do so. It doesn’t matter who they choose — in most red states, they would likely not be thwarting the will of the the majority, as long as they chose a Republican. This would give Trump only 269 votes in the Electoral College.

If neither party ends up with 270 votes, then the decision passes to the House of Representatives, and a vote in that chamber determines the winner. The House is permitted to choose from among the three candidates who receive the most votes in the Electoral College. Hence, dissenting electors can rest assured that they — and the voters they represent — will end up with a Republican president.


Although 24 states seek to prohibit faithless electors by a variety of methods, including pledges and the threat of fines or criminal action,

most constitutional scholars believe that once electors have been chosen, they remain constitutionally free agents (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32611.pdf), able to vote for any candidate who meets the requirements for President and Vice President.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-anthony-cooper/the-electoral-college-was_b_12897066.html

[DPG21920]

This is sad. Hillary isn't the answer and if you thought people had an issue with thinking she was shady before (lol losing to Trump because you are so untrustworthy) then wait and see what happens if this is the route she wins.

[DMC]

Yeah, and the 76ers can win the championship if the other 29 teams decide to just forego their competitive drive against them, in a show of defiance. It can happen.

[monosylab1k]

Good luck finding 10 Republicans who aren't standing in line waiting to licks his balls

[DMC]

Part of what's wrong in this nation is that the electorate claim to want change but scream like shit when it happens. They really want status quo with some better talking points.

[Chris]

Nary a peep about the Electoral College if Hillary would have won guaranteed.

[TeyshaBlue]

Co-signed.

[baseline bum]

Nary a peep about the Electoral College if Hillary would have won guaranteed.

I'd still be bitching about it. It is a built-in advantage for the GOP. You have to be about two points better than the GOP candidate to get elected thanks to this abortion of a system.

[baseline bum]

Isn't the house required to select one of the top three electoral vote getters in a brokered election? It would have been doable if McMullin won Utah and the GOP establishment would have jumped at the chance to elect him over Trump, but you must be out of your mind thinking the house would elect Clinton.

[Axl Rose]

You'd have to be a special type of little bitch to want to win by that type of fuckery, won't happen don't cream yourself

[Chinook]

Isn't the house required to select one of the top three electoral vote getters in a brokered election? It would have been doable if McMullin won Utah and the GOP establishment would have jumped at the chance to elect him over Trump, but you must be out of your mind thinking the house would elect Clinton.

But that's not what would theoretically happen. They'd vote for Clinton with a majority. House doesn't get a chance to decide.

[Chinook]

You'd have to be a special type of little bitch to want to win by that type of fuckery, won't happen don't cream yourself

I agree. I hate the EC, but that's for the between time. Can't change the rules now.

[boutons_deux]

Nary a peep about the Electoral College if Hillary would have won guaranteed.

Of course not. Why would there be a peep from the Dems? Totally different, and typical rightwingnutjob false equivalence.

Dems weren't divided, were not endorsing her, trashing her in the same way top level and many other Repugs have been with Trash from the beginning.

Trash is toxic for a lot of Repugs, they know he's not qualified, knows shit about government (except which property tax appraisal people to bribe), diplomacy, law, Constitution, and is emotionally unstable, a disordered personality.

[DMC]

Rules always suck when they don't favor us. Just look at all the EC threads over the past few weeks...

[baseline bum]

Rules always suck when they don't favor us. Just look at all the EC threads over the past few weeks...

The electoral college never favors the Democrats :lol

[DMC]

The electoral college never favors the Democrats :lol

It seems to me the Dems start with well over 200 EV while the repugs less than 180 from states that almost always go that direction. How do you figure differently? Doesn't a repug have to win almost every "battleground" state to win?

[Xevious]

This is the second time in a twenty year period that the candidate who won the popular vote lost the election. Now, I don't want Hillary in the Whitehouse, and there is nothing than can/should be done right this minute. But the system needs to change if we want to continue with the charade that this is a democracy. Especially in the digital age where every vote should be counted instantaneous and every vote should have equal value.

[DMC]

I realize the source and all but this is from 2014. Pretty decent or do you disagree?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/how-the-electoral-college-favors-democrats-and-why-republicans-must-change-it/article/2549447

[DMC]

This is the second time in a twenty year period that the candidate who won the popular vote lost the election. Now, I don't want Hillary in the Whitehouse, and there is nothing than can/should be done right this minute. But the system needs to change if we want to continue with the charade that this is a democracy. Especially in the digital age where every vote should be counted instantaneous and every vote should have equal value.

No, it's fine how it is. It keeps cities from ruling country with politics that ignore the rural areas.

[boutons_deux]

No, it's fine how it is. It keeps cities from ruling country with politics that ignore the rural areas.

rural areas have an excess of non-proportional representation in the Senate.

[baseline bum]

I realize the source and all but this is from 2014. Pretty decent or do you disagree?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/how-the-electoral-college-favors-democrats-and-why-republicans-must-change-it/article/2549447

I disagree, it's the same argument that everyone made Tuesday morning about why Trump had no chance. That it's a bunch of independent coin flips the Republicans have to win to get the presidency. If that was the case you'd only see a Republican president get elected a couple of times per century. Yet you have seen two in the last five elections when they lost the popular vote, and three overall. The electoral votes being based on numbers of congressional representatives ensures larger states get a smaller share of electoral vote per person than smaller ones do. That article claimed a loss in Florida ends the race when Trump still wins without their 29 electoral votes even though he lost the popular vote.

[Xevious]

No, it's fine how it is. It keeps cities from ruling country with politics that ignore the rural areas.
That's why the house/senate are set up the way they are. Besides, lower populated states are worth less electoral votes as it is.

[DMC]

rural areas have an excess of non-proportional representation in the Senate.

Then you should move to one, improve your representation.

[DMC]

That's why the house/senate are set up the way they are. Besides, lower populated states are worth less electoral votes as it is.

but a minimum of 3 regardless of the population. That means a different ratio of reps per capita. No matter, the process was set up intentionally to favor rural areas instead of urban ones. The fact is states hold the only true voting rights, and they extend those to the people. California votes for California, it's not added to the national boiling pot of votes and wasn't meant to be. Nothing else in government is added that way either, everything basically falls to power for states. A state can decide to not even hold a vote, and just pick who they like.

So much of the Constitution is built around the rights of states, people are simply part of states. Even amendments have to be ratified by states.

Candidates only get the "popular vote" because we artificially add the numbers from states. If they win the popular vote in that state, they win those electoral votes.

I don't think that needs to be done any other way. If it was changed it would only be to manipulate the results to favor one party over the other. Basically it would be like redistricting.

[Clipper Nation]

The electoral college never favors the Democrats :lol

The Democrats have three of the six states with the most electoral votes locked up in their favor every four years without even having to work for it. California (55), New York (29) and Illinois (20) are all solid blue. They used to have Pennsylvania and their 20 electoral votes on lock too, until Cankles choked that away this year :lol

Meanwhile, of the top six states, the Republicans only have Texas (29 votes) on lock, while Florida (29 votes) is a swing state.

Claiming that the Electoral College is a "disadvantage" to Democrats is just ridiculous. It doesn't hand you an automatic win every four years like a pure popular-vote system would, but it's also nowhere near the obstacle you're claiming it to be. It certainly didn't stop Obama from running up the score on McCain and Romney.

[Winehole23]

The House Democrats needed just one Senator to challenge, and couldn’t get one (reminiscent of Gore gaveling down the Congressional Black Caucus when they wanted to challenge election 2000 as seen in Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911). So, moving into “Watch what they do, not what they say” mode: (1) Democrat talk of Trump being a “fascist” is just that, talk; (2) Democrat talk of Trump not being “normal” is just that, since they just normalized him; (3) Democrat “resistance” will be carefully circumscribed indeed. From the 30,000 foot view, if I take Democrat talk seriously, the only logical end game is Trump’s removal from office via some sort of coup, probably a soft one (impeachment; resignation). That’s what the hilariously backfired push for “faithless electors” was all about; that’s what painting Trump as treasonous is all about. After all, one doesn’t delegitimize an opponent for fun, but to take power. But when push comes to shove, as it did here, the Democrats don’t and won’t throw a punch (and will offer only the most milquetoast “fight back” rhetoric, which we’ve heard a thousand times before, because they’re always “fighting” and never winning; see “Our First Stand,” below). So I can only conclude that I shouldn’t take Democrat talk seriously, which would be fine, except millions of well-intentioned voters are doing just that, and experiencing real fear and anxiety (at the physiological level, as in sleep and stomach problems, and (costly) psychiatric sessions). What does the end game look like when you deploy strategic fear management — tensions at the level of a casus belli, or a change in the Constitutional order — so successfullly to millions of voters and yet offer no real relief? I don’t know. I mean, I don’t know aside from liberal goodthinkers cashing in on the clicks and the book deals.http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/01/links-1817.html

[CosmicCowboy]

The Democrats have three of the six states with the most electoral votes locked up in their favor every four years without even having to work for it. California (55), New York (29) and Illinois (20) are all solid blue. They used to have Pennsylvania and their 20 electoral votes on lock too, until Cankles choked that away this year :lol

Meanwhile, of the top six states, the Republicans only have Texas (29 votes) on lock, while Florida (29 votes) is a swing state.

Claiming that the Electoral College is a "disadvantage" to Democrats is just ridiculous. It doesn't hand you an automatic win every four years like a pure popular-vote system would, but it's also nowhere near the obstacle you're claiming it to be. It certainly didn't stop Obama from running up the score on McCain and Romney.

True

They just can't get over what a shitty candidate Hillary was. Trump was terrible but she was even worse.

[boutons_deux]

They just can't get over what a shitty candidate Hillary was. Trump was terrible but she was even worse.

How's that Trash and Putin dick taste?

[Thread]

How's that Trash and Putin dick taste?


Like shaved pussy.

Trash ordered all ambassadors to be back on American soil by the time he takes the oath.

C'mon, home, the high life is over.

:lmao:lmao:lmao

[mavsfan1000]

Like shaved pussy.

Trash ordered all ambassadors to be back on American soil by the time he takes the oath.

C'mon, home, the high life is over.

:lmao:lmao:lmao
:lol

[boutons_deux]

Forget 'imperial' California: Donald Trump only won the Electoral College thanks to Appalachia (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/4/1613126/-Forget-imperial-California-Donald-Trump-only-won-the-Electoral-College-thanks-to-Appalachia)

Many conservatives profess a newfound love (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ditching-electoral-college-would-allow-california-to-impose-imperial-rule-on-a-colonial-america/article/2608766) for a system that they claim supposedly protects us from an “imperial” California unfairly imposing its will on the rest of America, never mind that it was originally intended to empower slave states (https://thinkprogress.org/the-constitution-of-the-united-states-has-failed-797a657eab28#.22gavdoob).

http://images.dailykos.com/images/343095/story_image/2016_Presidential_Election_-_Electoral_College.png?1482721193

The above map shows what the Electoral College outcome would have been if the large cultural region of Appalachia composed a single populous state (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/19/1255733/-Political-Geography-What-if-Appalachia-Were-its-Own-State) like New York that spanned from Alabama to Pennsylvania instead of being divided 11 ways

Under these redrawn state lines, Trump would have just barely won a 280-258 majority of Electoral College votes nationally. His 0.2 percent margin in Michigan would have been the state to put him over the top.

As shown below, the hypothetical state of Appalachia favored Trump by a 33.8 point landslide, an even larger margin than Hillary Clinton’s 30-point win in California;

indeed, Appalachia would have been Trump’s fourth-best state (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1D-edaVHTnZNhVU840EPUhz3Cgd7m39Urx7HM8Pq6Pus/edit?usp=sharing) after Wyoming, Oklahoma, and North Dakota.

Consequently, its 26 electoral votes would have been indispensable for Trump’s victory because without them, Clinton would have won more electoral votes, 258 to Trump's 254.

Excluding their heavily Republican Appalachian regions, Clinton would have captured the rump states of Georgia by 0.9 percent and Pennsylvania by 13.1 percent.

Clinton even came within just 0.3 percent of winning North Carolina’s 14 remaining electoral votes, which would have handed her an Electoral College victory even if we included Appalachia.

If we removed Appalachia from the election entirely, Clinton’s national popular vote margin doubles from 2.1 percent to 4 points.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/01/04/1613126/-Forget-imperial-California-Donald-Trump-only-won-the-Electoral-College-thanks-to-Appalachia?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

What will Trash do for his conned voters in Appalachia? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

[SnakeBoy]

If we removed Appalachia from the election entirely, Clinton’s national popular vote margin doubles from 2.1 percent to 4 points.

:lol Let's create a state that doesn't exist and then remove it to show how great Hillary would have done if she didn't suck so bad.

[DMC]

Forget 'imperial' California: Donald Trump only won the Electoral College thanks to Appalachia (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/4/1613126/-Forget-imperial-California-Donald-Trump-only-won-the-Electoral-College-thanks-to-Appalachia)

Many conservatives profess a newfound love (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ditching-electoral-college-would-allow-california-to-impose-imperial-rule-on-a-colonial-america/article/2608766) for a system that they claim supposedly protects us from an “imperial” California unfairly imposing its will on the rest of America, never mind that it was originally intended to empower slave states (https://thinkprogress.org/the-constitution-of-the-united-states-has-failed-797a657eab28#.22gavdoob).

http://images.dailykos.com/images/343095/story_image/2016_Presidential_Election_-_Electoral_College.png?1482721193

The above map shows what the Electoral College outcome would have been if the large cultural region of Appalachia composed a single populous state (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/19/1255733/-Political-Geography-What-if-Appalachia-Were-its-Own-State) like New York that spanned from Alabama to Pennsylvania instead of being divided 11 ways

Under these redrawn state lines, Trump would have just barely won a 280-258 majority of Electoral College votes nationally. His 0.2 percent margin in Michigan would have been the state to put him over the top.

As shown below, the hypothetical state of Appalachia favored Trump by a 33.8 point landslide, an even larger margin than Hillary Clinton’s 30-point win in California;

indeed, Appalachia would have been Trump’s fourth-best state (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1D-edaVHTnZNhVU840EPUhz3Cgd7m39Urx7HM8Pq6Pus/edit?usp=sharing) after Wyoming, Oklahoma, and North Dakota.

Consequently, its 26 electoral votes would have been indispensable for Trump’s victory because without them, Clinton would have won more electoral votes, 258 to Trump's 254.

Excluding their heavily Republican Appalachian regions, Clinton would have captured the rump states of Georgia by 0.9 percent and Pennsylvania by 13.1 percent.

Clinton even came within just 0.3 percent of winning North Carolina’s 14 remaining electoral votes, which would have handed her an Electoral College victory even if we included Appalachia.

If we removed Appalachia from the election entirely, Clinton’s national popular vote margin doubles from 2.1 percent to 4 points.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/01/04/1613126/-Forget-imperial-California-Donald-Trump-only-won-the-Electoral-College-thanks-to-Appalachia?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

What will Trash do for his conned voters in Appalachia? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING




This is some anorexic shit. If your mother sucked for just 10 more seconds you'd not have been born. There are a lot of ifs running around. Good luck living with them.

[TeyshaBlue]

:lol Let's create a state that doesn't exist and then remove it to show how great Hillary would have done if she didn't suck so bad.

Kos-worthy tbh.

[boutons_deux]

The Appalachian poor, like white poor Trash voters everywhere, won't get shit from Trash and the Repugs, and will get screwed more. Inequality will get much worse, which means the poor getting poorer.

[Thread]

The Appalachian poor, like white poor Trash voters everywhere, won't get shit from Trash and the Repugs, and will get screwed more. Inequality will get much worse, which means the poor getting poorer.

You got your ass kicked, daddy. Ain't nothin' gonna change that.

ha.

[spurraider21]

:lmao Booboo... This is among your most embarrassing shares, and that's saying something

[z0sa]

rural areas have an excess of non-proportional representation in the Senate.

It is almost like that is part of a centuries old compromise.

Didn't you know?¿