It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The Constitution lets the electoral college choose the winner. They should choose Clinton.

page: 1
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 03:14 AM
link   
The Constitution lets the electoral college choose the winner. They should choose Clinton.
Source: www.washingtonpost.com

Many think we should abolish the electoral college. I’m not convinced that we should. Properly understood, the electors can serve an important function. What if the people elect a Manchurian candidate? Or a child rapist? What if evidence of massive fraud pervades a close election?It is a useful thing to have a body confirm the results of a democratic election — so long as that body exercises its power reflectively and conservatively. Rarely — if ever — should it veto the people’s choice. And if it does, it needs a very good reason.

Hillary Clinton has so far won the popular vote by over 2.1 million votes and counting. For the electors to choose Trump would be to veto the power of the people.

As stated in the article, "The winner, by far, of the popular vote is the most qualified candidate for president in more than a generation."

So, is there any good reason to veto the people's choice for 2016?


There is not. And indeed, there is an especially good reason for them not to nullify what the people have said — the fundamental principle of one person, one vote. We are all citizens equally. Our votes should count equally. And since nothing in our Constitution compels a decision otherwise, the electors should respect the equal vote by the people by ratifying it on Dec. 19.

It's a point worth repeating. By electing Trump, the electors would be essentially exercising a veto on the American people's vote, violating one of the most important principles governing our democracy- "one person, one vote". So the question is, was the people's choice so far beyond the bounds of reason to warrant such an unprecedented veto of over 2.1 million votes? Or in this case, is it the duty of the electors to uphold the vote of the People, and respect the fundamental value of equal citizenship, by casting their vote for Hillary?

I agree with the conclusion...

"The framers left the electors free to choose. They should exercise that choice by leaving the election as the people decided it: in Clinton’s favor."

edit on 26-11-2016 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



+88 more 
posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 03:21 AM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie
Which would absolutely go against the Constitution and the Electoral college
Done
next


+53 more 
posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 03:21 AM
link   
How about no?


+61 more 
posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 03:22 AM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie

The electoral collage was set up to give the states equal power. The people are the ones that choose! Just because every idiot in California and New York voted for Clinton doesn't mean that we should allow them to dictate to the rest of the country.

There are already a dozen threads on this same topic. If you want to know how ATS feels try reading.

Just more click bait. That is how I personally feel. This has been hashed over again and again.

Just one example here ATS


edit on 26-11-2016 by Diisenchanted because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 03:27 AM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie
The electors in a Trump-won state are a pre-chosen list of ardent Republicans, just as those in a Clinton state are a pre-chosen list of ardent Democrats.
All the prospective lists were available on Wikimedia before the election, and someone made an ATS thread on the subject.
It is not psychologically plausible that either set will switch to another party.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 03:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: spiritualzombie
Which would absolutely go against the Constitution and the Electoral college
Done
next

It absolutely does not go against the Constitution nor the Electoral College. The Electors choose who they vote for. They were designed not to dictate the vote but as a safeguard if the people's vote was not in alignment with democratic values. To vote for Hillary Clinton with be to uphold the principles of democracy and equal citizenship.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 03:27 AM
link   

edit on 26-11-2016 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)


+43 more 
posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 03:28 AM
link   
Sure, if you want the states to start filing paperwork for secession.

The function of the electoral college is to make sure the nations voices aren't drowned out by states like New York, California and Texas. Clinton only won 18 out of 50 states, if the presidency was decided solely by popular vote cities like NY, LA and Chicago would determine every election, so there would be no point in campaigning anywhere but those cities.

It's called The United States for a reason.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 03:28 AM
link   
S.S.D.D how tiresome .


+20 more 
posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Please stop promoting Civil War.


+31 more 
posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 03:29 AM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie

Are you suggesting that even though Trump amassed more than the required 270 EC votes to officially win the election, Hillary should be POTUS because she got more individual votes (the popular vote) than Trump?

It's my understanding that the EC count is a checks & balances system to address large population areas (the biggest cities) whose popular vote may not be a true reflection of the choices made by the entire collective outside those large population areas.

On the basis of your OP, should Gore have been given the top job in 2000?


+1 more 
posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie
The majority of the people voted for Trump,popular and electorate,so how would the constitution be fair in giving it to Hillary? because you say so? what kind of liberal are you



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie

Yes it does.

Your opinion doesn't count.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 03:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Oldtimer2

He's the warmongering establishment type.

Kind of like Bush Republicans but only with gay marriage allowed or something.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 03:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Diisenchanted
a reply to: spiritualzombie

Yes it does.

Your opinion doesn't count.



The Supreme Court determined that electors in the Electoral College have the right to be faithless electors.


The constitutionality of state pledge laws was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1952 in Ray v. Blair[8] in a 5–2 vote. The court ruled states have the right to require electors to pledge to vote for the candidate whom their party supports, and the right to remove potential electors who refuse to pledge prior to the election. The court also wrote:

However, even if such promises of candidates for the electoral college are legally unenforceable because violative of an assumed constitutional freedom of the elector under the Constitution, Art. II, § 1, to vote as he may choose in the electoral college, it would not follow that the requirement of a pledge in the primary is unconstitutional (emphasis added).[8]

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."[9]

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote.

SOURCE


1836 Presidential Election: Faithless Electors Altered the Outcome of the Electoral College Vote


+9 more 
posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 03:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: spiritualzombie
Which would absolutely go against the Constitution and the Electoral college
Done
next

It absolutely does not go against the Constitution nor the Electoral College. The Electors choose who they vote for. They were designed not to dictate the vote but as a safeguard if the people's vote was not in alignment with democratic values. To vote for Hillary Clinton with be to uphold the principles of democracy and equal citizenship.

I tried to caution you in a nice way. Your ignorance of the Electoral college is showing
Feel better now ?
I really hated to say that. We could have just left it as it was and you could have had time to read up on the subject.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 03:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Konduit

That's not true... The electoral college is a safeguard against a problem with a messed up popular vote. This was not the case. Also, it's very rare for a candidate to win the electoral vote but not the popular vote. In rare cases like this, electoral colleges need to decide if they should veto the will of the people or uphold it. Hillary is ahead by an unprecedented 2.1 million votes and counting. There is not good reason to veto that many votes.


+38 more 
posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 03:37 AM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie

California and New York don't represent all of America, that's one.

Hillary is corrupt, evil and a warmonger, that's two.

do you need more?



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 03:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Like you said, the electors are free agents, able to vote who they choose, and in this case they should exercise that choice by choosing what the people have decided: Clinton.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 03:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

I couldn't give a crap what the supreme court said! They also said that Obamacare is not a tax. Sure they can be faithless, but they are being faithless to their home state. Do you think that the people in that state wont make them pay for their insubordination? There are also fines and penalties for being faithless.

This thread is a dupe and should be closed.


edit on 26-11-2016 by Diisenchanted because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join