Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[DasBroot]

Most of those voters were 'overflow' in states she handily one.  How is it fair for 38 electoral voters to go against the will of THEIR people for the sake of THE people?  

 

It's a lousy system but it's the lousy system we have.  Petition to change it, by all means - it could use it - but it's unfair to put the burden of changing the results on the mostly symbolic electoral college vote.  They're there to represent their state votes - though influencing the outcome in any meaningful way *would* be a good way to get themselves abolished, I admit. 

[Twilight]

How is it fair for the votes of 38 people to override the votes of over two million people? The actual American people have decided who they wanted to be President and it wasn't Trump, yet he's going in because 38 people said it should be so.

[Netzilla]

It all depends on the reasons of the EC members have for casting their votes the way they do.  Unfortunately, we don't have much of a system for judging the justifiably of EC votes.  Any EC member who goes against the popular vote in their state risks a law suit.  At that point, the courts get to decide if their faithless vote was justified.  Unfortunately, the 2 mil citizens argument isn't likely to hold much sway.  On the other hand, issues surrounding Trump and emoluments and potential foreign influence probably have a better chance of standing up in court.  Time is running short for evidence to be presented on those issues before the EC has to make its decision. 

 

Personally, if I were an EC, I would consider Trump's delay in revealing his plan for divesting himself of his business entanglements would be enough to disqualify him.  He really should have had a plan ready to go before the election.

[Old Man]

Interestingly enough, one of the original purposes of the EC appears to have been preventing the election of an unqualified populist candidate by the mob. That's why the Constitution doesn't hold the electors to the votes in their respective states. State laws do, but it could be argued that those laws are unconstitutional.

 

I'm hearing reports that some electors are requesting intelligence briefings on the Russian influence issue.

[Netzilla]

Yep, I've heard the same, and this is the ECs chance to prove the worth of its existence.  If an elector is presented evidence of outside interference with the election or they feel he is in danger of violating of the Emoluments Clause, then the EC preventing a Trump presidency would be the EC working as designed.

[Sociotard]

And, of course, groups have offered to pay the fines the states levy against faithless electors.

[Hermit]

And, of course, groups have offered to pay the fines the states levy against faithless electors.

 

Yeah, money is speech, right?  ergo...

[Netzilla]

And, of course, groups have offered to pay the fines the states levy against faithless electors.

 

There's some law firms that have offered to do pro bono work for faithless electors.

[Old Man]

Yeah, money is speech, right?  ergo...

 

I could sure as hell use some more speech this Christmas.

[pinecone]

"Need more Speech, please give" written a chunk of cardboard...I think I'd chip in.

[Old Man]

[Pariah]

Complaining that a candidate who won the popular vote didn't win the election is a little like complaining that the football team that amassed the most yards of offense didn't win the game.

 

"Yards of offense" is an important stat, but it's not what decides the outcome of the game. What decides the outcome of the game is "Points scored". Similar and linked, yes, but not the same.

 

Similarly, we do not now nor, to my knowledge, have we ever determined the Presidency of the United States in terms of the popular vote. It's the Electoral College vote that really matters. Always has been.

[Twilight]

Complaining that a candidate who won the popular vote didn't win the election is a little like complaining that the football team that amassed the most yards of offense didn't win the game.

 

"Yards of offense" is an important stat, but it's not what decides the outcome of the game. What decides the outcome of the game is "Points scored". Similar and linked, yes, but not the same.

 

Similarly, we do not now nor, to my knowledge, have we ever determined the Presidency of the United States in terms of the popular vote. It's the Electoral College vote that really matters. Always has been.

Then American elections have not know, nor have they ever been Democratic.  If the vote that determines the will of the people is secondary to the process, if it doesn't actually count, then the American system is built on a big fat lie.

[Old Man]

That's probably a little too strong.  The EC is a holdover from when it was "the United States are" and not "the United States is".  Once upon a time it made sense for states to vote on the presidency rather than individuals.  But that probably hasn't been the case for a century now, which is why I advocate for the abolishment of the EC.

[Twilight]

That's probably a little too strong.  The EC is a holdover from when it was "the United States are" and not "the United States is".  Once upon a time it made sense for states to vote on the presidency rather than individuals.  But that probably hasn't been the case for a century now, which is why I advocate for the abolishment of the EC.

As do I, though by this point I'm pretty sure that's rather obvious.     Still I needed to get that off my chest.

[Badger]

Most of those voters were 'overflow' in states she handily one.  How is it fair for 38 electoral voters to go against the will of THEIR people for the sake of THE people?  

 

It's a lousy system but it's the lousy system we have.  Petition to change it, by all means - it could use it - but it's unfair to put the burden of changing the results on the mostly symbolic electoral college vote.  They're there to represent their state votes - though influencing the outcome in any meaningful way *would* be a good way to get themselves abolished, I admit. 

 

Exactly, NC has to vote for NC wants, not what CA wants.

 

If you want to change the EC, it is a change for 2020 not 2016.  You don't get to change the rules at the 2 minute timeout of the 4th quarter

[Badger]

Then American elections have not know, nor have they ever been Democratic.  If the vote that determines the will of the people is secondary to the process, if it doesn't actually count, then the American system is built on a big fat lie.

 

I am afraid you have been mislead.  It was never intended to be a democracy.  A democratic republic, yes.  Democracy, no.

[Badger]

It would be ironic, if the side who wants to change to popular vote, would then go out and lose the popular vote, BUT would have won the now-defunct EC vote.  I'd be willing to bet we would have protest with sign that read  "Bring back EC!"

[megaplayboy]

Federalist 68. The Electoral College exists in large part as a check on demagogic populism.

[Lord Mhoram]

Federalist 68. The Electoral College exists in large part as a check on demagogic populism.

Well there is some irony for ya.

[Old Man]

Well, it's not impossible. If neither candidate gets 270 electoral votes next monday, and if the House doesn't automatically flip the resulting contingent election to Trump, then balloting would continue in the House until one of the top three vote-getters earns a 26-vote majority of the statewide contingents in the House. This was supposed to be the path to the presidency for whatshisname in Utah. It is still desperately unlikely, however, as the electors are already receiving rather serious death threats from Trump supporters.

 

(Yes, contingent elections in the House are apparently very odd--counted by state, not representative. IANACL.)

[Lawnmower Boy]

however, as the electors are already receiving rather serious death threats from Trump supporters.

 

 

 

...Which should be treated with all the respect due to an electoral coalition that mustered 46.2% of the popular vote share in what's supposed to be a "wave" election on fundamentals. . . 

[Old Man]

We already have instances of these clowns rushing into pizza joints, assault rifles blazing, to rescue infants from the child trafficking rings that they know are in there.  Literally. 

[Twilight]

We already have instances of these clowns rushing into pizza joints, assault rifles blazing, to rescue infants from the child trafficking rings that they know are in there.  Literally. 

Then those clowns should be tossed in jail, just as those attempting to influence the electors via death threats should be.

[Armitage]

Then those clowns should be tossed in jail, just as those attempting to influence the electors via death threats should be.

 

 

What about when a candidate's campaign attempts to influence the electors with threats of political reprisal?

 

 

 

Donald Trump’s campaign is pressuring Republican electors into voting for them under “threats of political reprisal,” according to a member of the Electoral College who spoke to Salon under the condition of anonymity.

 

“We have gotten reports from multiple people,” the elector said, “that the Donald Trump campaign is putting pressure on Republican electors to vote for him based on... future political outcomes based on whether they vote for Donald Trump or not.”

 

The elector emphasized that these reports had come straight from the Republican electors themselves, with the threats steering clear of violence but instead focusing on “career pressure.”