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

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: Krakatoa


They ALL have that option. For some there is a minor fine... just a few hundred bucks or a thousand. Stop spreading misinformation. They ALL have the constitutional right to vote different from their state.

Not in Michigan.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
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."

Meh .. I'll jump on the fake news band wagon.

WaPro = fake news

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: Krakatoa


They ALL have that option. For some there is a minor fine... just a few hundred bucks or a thousand. Stop spreading misinformation. They ALL have the constitutional right to vote different from their state.

This "option" could have more dire circumstances than, as you call it, a "minor fine". They could also be stripped of their electoral status and replaced with another person. I suggest YOU stop spreading misinformation. Providing incomplete and misleading information is just as bad as fake information.
Link to Electoral Restrictions

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states. Some states, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

For example, in the particular case of Michigan;

...MICHIGAN – State Law – § 168.47 (Violation cancels vote and Elector is replaced.) ...

a reply to: Vector99

Yes, all states, even Michigan.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

Nope. You should educate yourself. The state's own laws regarding their electors are constitutional and in Michigan faithless electors votes are nullified and the elector is replaced.

Sigh...

a reply to: Vector99

I already posted a link to the regulations. I guess it doesn't matter to this member. What they WAAAANT is more important that the law. Sounds a lot like a certain losing presidential candidate.

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
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."

Meh .. I'll jump on the fake news band wagon.

WaPro = fake news

That's false and by saying that you are feeding an effort to divide and confuse the American people for the purpose of migrating them under an umbrella of false information. The fact that the side that supports Trump is also the side pushing these lies is proof of something sinister behind the scenes of this Trump election.

All the more reason the Electors should exercise their right to vote for the candidate chosen by the people and not the one supported by the misinformation outlets.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

"Misinformation outlets" like CNN, MSNBC, NPR, ad nauseum?

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: spiritualzombie

Nope. You should educate yourself. The state's own laws regarding their electors are constitutional and in Michigan faithless electors votes are nullified and the elector is replaced.

Sigh...

It's a possibility, but it's never been done. If the Elector believes in the cause he or she should do what's right. They CAN vote however they like. You might be able to stop a few but not all. Just sayin' -- it IS possible and the EC should be considering it.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

You're saying that if you were in the EC you would be considering it.

The problem with that fantasy is that you are not in the EC and if you were, you would be a Clinton elector. No one in their right mind would ever designate you an elector for Trump.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

And it IS possible you will be struck on the head by a falling meteor too. However, the likelihood of that happening is just much as a faithless elector breaking a state law and risking being dismissed from this duty.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: spiritualzombie

"Misinformation outlets" like CNN, MSNBC, NPR, ad nauseum?

::

And what would you prefer? Twitter and Reddit, maybe Brietbart and Infowars? Yes, you are part of the problem. You are part of an effort to use the justified distrust of media to migrate people under an umbrella of false information.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: spiritualzombie

"Misinformation outlets" like CNN, MSNBC, NPR, ad nauseum?

::

And what would you prefer? Twitter and Reddit, maybe Brietbart and Infowars? Yes, you are part of the problem. You are part of an effort to use the justified distrust of media to migrate people under an umbrella of false information.

I maybe part of YOUR problem, but not the perceived problem of this country. See, the election process was known, understood, and accepted by ALL candidates when entering this process. Not accepting the results of a process that should be understood by a CAREER politician (especially one that has been actually in the process more than once) is one of clear desperation and cognitive dissonance. That is the first step toward mental illness I think.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: spiritualzombie

And it IS possible you will be struck on the head by a falling meteor too. However, the likelihood of that happening is just much as a faithless elector breaking a state law and risking being dismissed from this duty.

Some people fight for their country with a gun in their hand on foreign soil. Others only risk being dismissed from their duty. No one said fighting for the principles and values of your country in the face of tyranny would be risk free.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

Again, like I said, the EC in each state is representative of the party that won. There isn't just one group of 538 electors, there are twice as many, and no they should not veto their state's popular vote. Electors in Texas don't get to vote California's electoral votes and vice versa. Each state WILL vote with THEIR popular vote. That totals up for Trump winning. The nation is 50 individual states each with their own vote for the federal representation they will receive for the next 4 years. Each state is it's own sovereign entity with its own laws, populations, and representatives. The electoral college, while obviously flawed, is the best thing we have right now.

If you want to change the EC system, then campaign for it and tell your party to focus on that. The presidency is decided, Trump is president for the next 4 years. The DNC is a failing party because they are RE-active instead of PRO-active. This thread is a prime example of that.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

It's sad that there are still people as delusional as you.

Even Obama has said stop! He said that the vote shows "the will of the people "

As Disney says....Let it go....let it go.

a reply to: Krakatoa

An Elector exercising their vote in favor of the Popular Vote has nothing to do with mental illness.

You are attempting to add bullsh#t to muddy the waters. I hope people are noticing how first they say it's not possible for Electors to vote how they want, then after being corrected, the naysayers get specific and say it's not possible in Michigan, then finally they get really specific and say it would mean the vote is canceled and the Elector replaced-- and finally they get corrected that there's no guarantee that would happen since it's never happened before.

To vote in favor of the popular vote, the Elector would immediately have a lot of support behind them-- many might say it's actually more of a violation of our democratic system to vote against the people's vote-- effectively vetoing the people's choice for President.

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: spiritualzombie

It's sad that there are still people as delusional as you.

Even Obama has said stop! He said that the vote shows "the will of the people "

As Disney says....Let it go....let it go.

Exactly. MSM = left wing propoganda, and WaPro is attached to the tit. This is nonsense.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: spiritualzombie

They ought to arrest and prosecute Clinton, not put her in office.

Yeh, they ought to arrest and prosecute Clinton, and sentence her to 4 years in the White House, let her serve the people as punishment for all her evil crimes. Many criminals are required to do public service as part of their punishment. Why not Clinton too?

The funny thing about all this, is that Hillary might well be the next president, anyway. Now that Jill Stein has demanded a recount in 3 states, and requested "manual recounts" to be sure, it's unlikely that the recount would finish on time before the required deadline. Once the recount starts, if it is not complete by the dates the law requires, those electoral votes don't get counted in the total, they are forfeited. Then, it's a toss up, who the electoral college will actually vote for, with the remaining votes. Already, some are saying that although Trump won in their state, they won't give him the EC votes when the time comes in January. It's going to be fun, guys. It ain't over till the fat lady sings.

Donald Trump criticized the Electoral College system before the elections, claiming that it makes the system rigged. Then, when it seemed he won by that very Electoral College system, he's now saying that it's "pure genius", a fair design by the clever founding fathers to give all the states an equal say in who's president. Well, he hasn't seen the full implications yet, of that very Electoral College system. They may well decide to elect the candidate who got the popular vote, given the uncertainty in the recount districts, especially if that recount isn't completed by the deadline, leaving them with the peculiar circumstance that the only certainty known without doubt nor dispute being Hillary with the most total votes.

Wonder what The Donald will say then, when he sees the ultimate final reality in January?

a reply to: spiritualzombie

For the record, I was not referring to the mental state of the members of the Electoral College.