Huffington Post: The Electoral College Was Designed to Prevent Trump...Make This Happen.

The Huffington Post is just pandering to it's audience. I can't think of a more biased source that needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

As of this moment, nobody knows whether Clinton actually received more votes than Trump. Nearly all the Trump States have from 2% to 20% of the votes still unreported. It could easily change with Trump in the end receiving the most votes. Lot's of dishonestly surrounding things being said about that, or illiteracy, I'm not sure which.

I did not vote for or like either person, but I do respect the process and have zero respect for those who don't. Those who want to force their wants on everyone else are a huge part of the problem in the first place. I find it amazing how immature and dishonest people become when their candidate looses.

Michael Moore calling for abolishing the EC. As well as many other things, such as Occupying the White House with the intent to impeach Trump (seems a bit open to interpretation some of his various talking points).

Will make a good thread for whoever wants it:
www.infowars.com...

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I remember it was quite a show, I sat watching and laughing about the 9,000 votes with hanging chads, that was hilarious how they will grab the cards and put them to the light to check the chads, then pass them around to make sure.

Then it was a joke that children were named chad after that historical election.

But none of it was a joke.

Those pregnant and dangling chads fairly reflected voter preference.

Nothing about them should have been mocked.

And nothing about them warranted moving away from paper ballots. They warranted IMPROVING THE DESIGN OF PAPER BALLOTS. That's all.

The media mocked them on purpose. Now we don't have paper ballots -- across the country -- that can be recounted and examined, if necessary, to determine voter preference.

Seventeen states use hackable electronic voting machines that can never be recounted. They can be audited...but the vote tallies will never change.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
As of this moment, nobody knows whether Clinton actually received more votes than Trump. Nearly all the Trump States have from 2% to 20% of the votes still unreported. It could easily change with Trump in the end receiving the most votes.

And California and Washington have 31-40% that are still uncounted.

Prepare for a completely machinated sh*tstorm. Hillary's popular vote lead will grow and they will use it to steal this election with faithless electors.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

They don't need to hack voting machines (these machines aren't even connected to the internet btw).

All they need to do is re-district, gerrymander and essentially render people's votes useless. Everyone knows if you vote Democrat in Texas your vote doesn't matter.

It works the same at the district level within counties. If the districts are drawn wonky, those districts can turn one color instead of another, giving a false representation of the people's will.

Gerrymandering is legal, and something that no one wants to tackle. It subverts our democratic process and has cost many people their voice.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: carewemust
Donald Trump won ARIZONA earlier today. With 100% of the votes counted in MICHIGAN, he has taken that state too.

Source: www.msn.com...

I'm amazed at, but PROUD of, both Michigan and Arizona for making the right choice. The choice that's best for their futures. Time for the Huffington Post and the Protesters to grow up, learn from their mistakes, and prepare to win in 2024.

Michigan is STILL at 96%. It's been stuck there for 24 hours.

There is some seriously stinky, smelly, rotten buII# going on.

Here's the official Michigan website. No calculator handy. Do the totals add up to 100%???
miboecfr.nictusa.com...

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: MotherMayEye

They don't need to hack voting machines (these machines aren't even connected to the internet btw).

All they need to do is re-district, gerrymander and essentially render people's votes useless. Everyone knows if you vote Democrat in Texas your vote doesn't matter.

It works the same at the district level within counties. If the districts are drawn wonky, those districts can turn one color instead of another, giving a false representation of the people's will.

Gerrymandering is legal, and something that no one wants to tackle. It subverts our democratic process and has cost many people their voice.

Gerrymandering is but one way of many to manipulate the vote. Don't stop there. And, no, I didn't mean hacking via the internet. I meant through programming and calibration. Perhaps, I used the term incorrectly.

ETA: And besides...it's become clear that this election will be the catalyst to undo the electoral college system. Gerrymandering as far as presidential elections go, will be a thing of the past.

a reply to: carewemust

Rounds to 95%.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Ah I gotcha.

From what I saw the videos of "rigged machines" were user-error, people not pushing in the right place.

In any case, the machine allows you to review your selections before you finalize and cast your electronic ballot. If something doesn't look right it's on the voter to say something.

a reply to: Kettu

Perhaps people will catch it, perhaps not. But they are calibration errors and I've seen them captured on video. People are pressing in the exact precise spot and all around the precise spot to get their vote to register -- but it doesn't or they think it does, but it switches at the end.

And perhaps they catch that or perhaps they don't.

Fractional vote counting is the really scary thing to be concerned with:

Link to Black Box Voting

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Kettu

Perhaps people will catch it, perhaps not. But they are calibration errors and I've seen them captured on video. People are pressing in the exact precise spot and all around the precise spot to get their vote to register -- but it doesn't or they think it does, but it switches at the end.

And perhaps they catch that or perhaps they don't.

Fractional vote counting is the really scary thing.

Link to Blax Box Voting

If that happened to me, I'd be getting someone to assist me in making sure my vote was correctly cast. I wouldn't be leaving until the issue was resolved.

This crying after the fact, after knowingly allowing your vote to be wrong seems...illogical.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: smurfy
If those Republicans consider him an independent too, they might not vote for him, they need not vote for him should they consider him unsuitable

The problem with this theory is that the alternative is Hillary. Whether these pre-selected Republicans like Trump or not, they surely detest Hillary more. That's why the scenario of "faithless electors turning to Hillary" is so implausible.

It's not a theory, it's happened before. In any case, they don't need to vote for Hillary either, they can vote for anybody.

a reply to: Kettu

It is possible to be unaware.

a reply to: Profusion
OP, I read the link and I have to agree with the underlying facts.

en.wikipedia.org - Faithless elector...

The ruling only held that requiring a pledge, not a vote, was constitutional and Justice Jackson wrote in his dissent, "no one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated what is implicit in its text – that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices." More recent legal scholars believe "a state law that would thwart a federal elector’s discretion at an extraordinary time when it reasonably must be exercised would clearly violate Article II and the Twelfth Amendment."

And yet:

Twenty-one states do not have laws compelling their electors to vote for a pledged candidate.[2] Twenty-nine states plus the District of Columbia have laws to penalize faithless electors, although these have never been enforced.[1] In lieu of penalizing a faithless elector, some states, like Michigan and Minnesota, specify the faithless elector's vote is void,[3] though no state has yet had cause to enforce such a provision.

So electors are, more often than not, persuaded to echo the state's vote, rather than vote their own conscience.

The history, according to the link above:

On 22 occasions, 179 electors have not cast their votes for President or Vice President as prescribed by the legislature of the state they represented. Of those, 71 electors changed their votes because the candidate to whom they were pledged died before the electoral ballot (1872, 1912). Two electors chose to abstain from voting for any candidate (1812, 2000).[1] The remaining 106 were changed by the elector's personal interest, or perhaps by accident. Usually, the faithless electors act alone. An exception was the 1836 election, in which all 23 Virginia electors acted together.

The number of electors per state is--I think--equal to the electoral votes. For example, California has 55 electors and 55 electoral votes.

All states, except 2 of them, follow a procedure whereby the electors vote based on who has the most votes. Many states also have pledges or otherwise penalize anybody who doesn't vote this way. And this is hte nature of the OP and the link in the OP. The constitution, by all appearances and perspective, indicates electors should be free agents and able to vote their conscience. Being required to vote for the winning candidate or otherwise punished for not doing so is not free agency, is it? This should matter to people of all parties!

originally posted by: smurfy
It's not a theory, it's happened before. In any case, they don't need to vote for Hillary either, they can vote for anybody.

I was using the word "theory" for the idea that it might happen this time. I regard it as a flawed theory, because it disregards the psychology of being a member of the Electoral College. It is being put forward by Hillary supporters clutching at straws, so the possibility of an elector voting for a third party (not available in all states) would not meet their needs.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I doubt that. The radicals having a temper tantrum right now represent a tiny group of people. Nearly all of us have gone back to living our lives and the sane among us are wishing whoever is elected well and hoping things will improve no matter who won the election.

Those folks playing games to make themselves the center of attention will get tired or the weather will change and just like the childish people involved in the Occupy movement, they will fade away.

originally posted by: jonnywhite
Justice Jackson wrote in his dissent, "no one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated what is implicit in its text – that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices,

Thanks for that, I'm near turning blue here! I've used that same piece of text in explanation in other threads and no one really responded properly if at all...they think you have some bias.
But really, that piece of text is all you need to know.

Again let me burst the bubble, in our history the electoral votes always had gone to presidential elect.

Plain and simple, Trump will be the president, for the next 4 years.

for those that wish for a start or let say a somebody that the people could not even elect like Hilary, is not going to happen.

originally posted by: marg6043
Again let me burst the bubble, in our history the electoral votes always had gone to presidential elect.

Plain and simple, Trump will be the president, for the next 4 years.

for those that wish for a start or let say a somebody that the people could not even elect like Hilary, is not going to happen.

It would be unthinkable for it to happen.

But, think about it, the Electoral College vote has never superseded a half a million popular vote win either.

I think we are in for some serious trouble.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I doubt that. The radicals having a temper tantrum right now represent a tiny group of people. Nearly all of us have gone back to living our lives and the sane among us are wishing whoever is elected well and hoping things will improve no matter who won the election.

Those folks playing games to make themselves the center of attention will get tired or the weather will change and just like the childish people involved in the Occupy movement, they will fade away.

Remains to be seen. I hope you are right.

You have a lot more faith than I do. Behind the scenes...this election is some people's entire lives.