Reply With Quote
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.
Trump can still be stopped. The Founding Fathers foresaw just this catastrophe, and built a fail-safe into the Cons ution. 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,http://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-anthony-cooper/the-electoral-college-was_b_12897066.html
most cons utional scholars believe that once electors have been chosen, they remain cons utionally free agents, able to vote for any candidate who meets the requirements for President and Vice President.
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.
Yeah, and the 76ers can win the championship if the other 29 teams decide to just forego their compe ive drive against them, in a show of defiance. It can happen.
Good luck finding 10 Republicans who aren't standing in line waiting to licks his balls
Part of what's wrong in this nation is that the electorate claim to want change but scream like when it happens. They really want status quo with some better talking points.
Nary a peep about the Electoral College if Hillary would have won guaranteed.
Co-signed.
I'd still be ing 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.
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.
You'd have to be a special type of little to want to win by that type of ery, won't happen don't cream yourself
But that's not what would theoretically happen. They'd vote for Clinton with a majority. House doesn't get a chance to decide.
I agree. I hate the EC, but that's for the between time. Can't change the rules now.
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 about government (except which property tax appraisal people to bribe), diplomacy, law, Cons ution, and is emotionally unstable, a disordered personality.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 11-10-2016 at 10:58 PM.
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
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?The electoral college never favors the Democrats
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.
I realize the source and all but this is from 2014. Pretty decent or do you disagree?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ho...rticle/2549447
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.
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.
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.
Then you should move to one, improve your representation.
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 Cons ution 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.
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 yearThe electoral college never favors the Democrats
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
