Beware the "Faithless Elector"

[BugI02]

Will of the people? She won the popular vote.

Actually 'none of the above' arguably won the election. 90 million, or so, eligible voters did not vote. Hard to argue 60million votes represents more than the will of some of the people

 

[Thegeek]

The constitution allows the states to assign their electors as they see fit. Just like Maine (I think) divides their electors based on the percentage of the votes. So it's BS, but not unconstitutional. It's racketeering.

 

[K_W]

Too bad our election system requires a candidate to win 270 electoral votes.

I know. What I am trying to tell you is not coming across right.

 

[printcraft]

Living, breathing population? Only votes once population? Every legitimate vote actually counted as cast?

I have my doubts.

QFT

 

[HubertGummer]

I know. What I am trying to tell you is not coming across right.

I understand what you mean.


By the will of the people, I mean there was an election and every voter had a say. Trump won as the rules dictate.
But yes I understand your point, he didn't win the popular vote.

 

[wagyu52]

I don't see this happening, it would be political suicide for the Dems in the 2018 midterm.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Well of course she won't promote this publicly, this goes against the will of the people and would make her look bad. I seriously doubt she would turn the job down if the electors voted her in. And I seriously doubt she would not pay them off to vote for her.

Never underestimate how corrupt and crooked the Clintons are.

Just remember her speeches and etc that were exposed regarding her "public vs private stances". She (and her foundation) could very well privately push this and then sheepishly accept it after the fact as if it were grassroots. (when in reality it was astroturf) But given that doublespeak has been exposed via wikileaks, she may no longer have that luxury. But on the surface, she could claim "will of the people" and get a VERY large number of folks behind her, regardless of the validity.

Will of the people? She won the popular vote.

Barely. And its within the margin of error if you include the possibility of voter fraud: (my napkin research/fb post)


So voter fraud is a non issue? It cant possibly matter?

At last check Clinton took the popular vote by only about 566,000 votes, or about a half a percent. While there is no exact number available, its a safe bet to say that there are roughly 100,000 precincts in the US. So lets say only half of those precincts had shenanigans. No, I'll be VERY generous. Lets say 25% of the polls had shenanigans. So 566k / 25,000 precints= 22 votes per corrupt precint. Thats roughly 22 votes per "crooked" precinct to tie it up. 22 votes. Let that sink in.

Im not saying there was widespread fraud. I'm not saying it affected this election. I'm just pointing out how tight an election can be and frankly how little it could take to swing an election. With a half % margin, a handful of votes here and there could change the outcome.

 

[chipbennett]

I know. But it is a fact and means a majority of the population (not Country) wanted it, Hubert said it went "against the will of the people".

It is an utterly irrelevant fact, considering that our country is not a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic.

 

[BugI02]

The idea is out there among the soft-headed

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2016/11/11/more-north-texas-anti-trump-protests-planned-tonight/

Tonight the Next Generation Action Network (NGAN) has organized protests at Main Street Garden Park in Dallas and the Old Tarrant County Courthouse in Fort Worth.
Protesters want the popular vote to put Hillary Clinton in office, rather than the electoral vote — which Donald Trump won. Some hope their movement will convince electoral delegates to break their pledge when they meet next month.

 

[z96Cobra]

The House & Senate should be able to "correct" any faithless electors...

Procedure

Since the mid-20th century, on January 6 at 1:00 pm before a Joint Session of Congress, the Vice President opens the votes from each state in alphabetical order. He passes the votes to four tellers—two from the House and two from the Senate—who announce the results. House tellers include one Representative from each party and are appointed by the Speaker. At the end of the count, the Vice President then declares the name of the next President.

The date of the count was changed in 1957, 1985, 1989, 1997, 2009, and 2013.
Sitting Vice Presidents Richard Nixon (1961), Hubert Humphrey (1969), and Al Gore (2001) all announced that they had lost their own bid for the Presidency.
Objections

Since 1887, 3 U.S.C. 15 sets the method for objections to electoral votes. During the Joint Session, Members of Congress may object to individual electoral votes or to state returns as a whole. An objection must be declared in writing and signed by at least one Representative and one Senator. In the case of an objection, the Joint Session recesses and each chamber considers the objection separately in a session which cannot last more than two hours with each Member speaking for no more than five minutes. After each house votes on whether or not to accept the objection, the Joint Session reconvenes and both chambers disclose their decisions. If they agree to the objection, the votes in question are not counted. If either chamber does not agree with the objection, the votes are counted.

Objections to the Electoral College votes were recorded in 1969 and 2005. In both cases, the House and Senate rejected the objections and the votes in question were counted.

 

[foszoe]

The chances of this happening are so remote that it borders on unfathomable. Certainly not worth my mental energy.

 

[Ericpwp]

It is an utterly irrelevant fact, considering that our country is not a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic.

Yeah, but nobody knows that or understands what that means.

The chances of this happening are so remote that it borders on unfathomable. Certainly not worth my mental energy.

There are a lot of calls to change how it works including some from the nevertrumpers. The mental gymnastics are good. There is a lot to know about the way this country was set up. I don’t mind a litte advanced civics.

 

[oldpink]

All I can say is that it's fascinating to see how all these fools who dislike the Electoral College believe themselves to be far more learned on the subject of how to run our nation, which (as Chip already pointed out) is a republic, not a democracy.
This is also why each state has two senators, no matter how big or small, and why constitutional amendments require so much heavy lifting to enact, because the Founders were wise enough to design inertia against radical changes being easily pushed through.
The populous states already have a big advantage over the less populous, usually rural, states, and the Electoral College acts as a counterbalance to that, one which forces the presidential candidates to pay attention to those of us here in flyover country.
Take away the EC, and the candidates will totally ignore us, and the entire country will be turned overnight into a nationwide version of Illinois, where the vast expanse of the country is relatively conservative, while the tiny population centers dictate to us.

 

[BogWalker]

While I have not read much on how the Founding Fathers came to the conclusion of having an electoral college, I have read their reasonings on why we have a bicameral legislature, and I can only conclude that this nation was founded by men of great intelligence. I trust that we need the electoral college to maintain the balance of power between states.

I remain very skeptical about the 17th Amendment.

 

[K_W]

It may not happen but it will be remembered and if they get all 3 branches of government like we have now then they could abolish the College.

The media is pushing HARD for action... Here is what I found when I opened my Yahoo hompage today.... 3 articles right on the top fold...


Electoral College was started by slave owners... http://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...ge-slavery-akhil-reed-amar?yptr=yahoo&ref=yfp
2 Million crybaby's signed a petition to the electors... https://www.yahoo.com/news/millions...llege-to-elect-hillary-clinton-175038196.html
It's the electors duty to America to change their vote... On 'Faithless' (But Democratically Faithful) Electors | The Huffington Post

 

[oldpink]

It may not happen but it will be remembered and if they get all 3 branches of government like we have now then they could abolish the College.

The media is pushing HARD for action... Here is what I found when I opened my Yahoo hompage today.... 3 articles right on the top fold...


Electoral College was started by slave owners... http://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...ge-slavery-akhil-reed-amar?yptr=yahoo&ref=yfp
2 Million crybaby's signed a petition to the electors... https://www.yahoo.com/news/millions...llege-to-elect-hillary-clinton-175038196.html
It's the electors duty to America to change their vote... On 'Faithless' (But Democratically Faithful) Electors | The Huffington Post

Totally predictable from those three execrable outfits.
Butthurt libs hate anything that acts as a counter to their population centers dictating to the rest of us.

 

[BogWalker]

Totally predictable from those three execrable outfits.
Butthurt libs hate anything that acts as a counter to their population centers dictating to the rest of us.

Dictators gonna dictate.

 

[chipbennett]

All I can say is that it's fascinating to see how all these fools who dislike the Electoral College believe themselves to be far more learned on the subject of how to run our nation, which (as Chip already pointed out) is a republic, not a democracy.
This is also why each state has two senators, no matter how big or small, and why constitutional amendments require so much heavy lifting to enact, because the Founders were wise enough to design inertia against radical changes being easily pushed through.
The populous states already have a big advantage over the less populous, usually rural, states, and the Electoral College acts as a counterbalance to that, one which forces the presidential candidates to pay attention to those of us here in flyover country.
Take away the EC, and the candidates will totally ignore us, and the entire country will be turned overnight into a nationwide version of Illinois, where the vast expanse of the country is relatively conservative, while the tiny population centers dictate to us.

Take away the EC, and campaigns will be limited to the dozen largest metro areas in the country.

Talk about screwing the voters everywhere else. Translate Illinois into the county-by-county view of the country as a whole.

 

[actaeon277]

Faithless Electors for Hillary: Not Going to Happen | Tara Ross

Faithless Electors for Hillary: Not Going to Happen

 

[NyleRN]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong since I'm just now getting up to speed on this. From what little reading I've done on this I understand that IF the electorate were to overturn that on Jan 6 when congress meets they would vote and decide the next president. Since the house and senate is R majority they'd just give it back to Trump.