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.

 

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

page: 25
21
<< 22  23  24    26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 03:21 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

I check in and respond as I see fit. There's a lot of pages here, not all mine. Not convinced this is my obsession and not a weird counter obsession.

In fact, 24 pages tells me Hillary winning the Popular Vote does matter on some level. It's an irritant that the Trump people want to just go away.

At the end of the day, I'm only 1 of the 65 million who voted for Hillary. You should probably try to get used to it and not let it bother you.




posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 03:44 AM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie

most of those pages were people, like myself, attempting to teach you basic American civics...the stuff you should have learned in school.

Either you didn't learn it. Or, you choose to ignore it, which makes you, and folks like you, the tyrant, or the wanna-be tyrant.

You want to change the rules? There's a procedure for that, too. It's been in place for just as long. Amending the Constitution. Been done on several occasions. If it's that important to you, get to work.

I'd wish you good luck, but since you're incredibly wrong in this, I won't.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 05:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
At the end of the day, I'm only 1 of the 65 million who voted for Hillary.


At the end of the day im one of the people who helped elect Trump via the electoral college.

also - Here is your popular vote breakdown and why it doesnt matter -

These numbers should SHUT UP liberals about the Electoral College once and for all


Our Founders in their infinite wisdom created the Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?

The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet and it should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.


Click link for full article.




There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.

There are 62 counties in New York State.

Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.

Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.

In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)

Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3, 797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie

Will you please EDUCATE YOURSELF?

This is not how things work in America.




posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Seagull, Xcathdra, Ohanka...
You are all under the delusion that Electors have no choice in who they vote for. That fundamental flaw in understanding is driving most of the arguments. I suggest you ALL educate yourselves on this basic right.

You are free to argue the merits or effectiveness of Electors voting for Clinton but to deny this right exists is completely false. You can even point out the penalties or fines or state policies against it-- but the fact is, this is a constitutional right Electors can exercise regardless of whatever the state laws may be, or the consequences of a faithless elector vote.

Regarding state laws, the general consensus is that the state laws are unenforceable.

In this particular case, there is plenty of valid and justified reason for Electors to take a stand by casting their vote for someone other than Donald Trump.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Ohanka

That's such a ridiculous argument to make. To over simplify it; let's say there are 10 people and 5 counties. In one county there are six people, in the other 4 counties there's one person each. You're arguing that the people who live alone in their counties should have more voting power than the people who all live in the one county. That's a poor argument. Furthermore, that was never the intention of the electoral college, to give rural votes more voting power than urban votes. If you believe it was then you're wrong and you should study your constitutional history.

It's like those maps I've been seeing showing wide swaths of empty land going to Trump and arguing that land area > voting power. If you ask me, neither one of them should be president because neither one of them got more than 50% of the national vote.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie

There is a reason it's called Faithless.

There is no legal obligation to vote for the candidate the state chooses, in that, and that alone, you are correct. However, there is an implicit agreement, their word, their bond, if you will, that they will, indeed, abide by vote of their respective states.

Not illegal. No. Not right, most assuredly so.

What you define as valid, others would call, well, faithless. There's nothing good about that.

The reason they are allowed to not follow the dictates of their state, or so I surmise, is on the off chance there is a valid reason of some sort not to do so. The national vote totals are not valid, not even remotely. Is there some criminal act that he's guilty of...? If so, then that would be, assuming a vile enough crime, a reason for the elector not to vote for him. But that requires a guilty verdict, not to mention a trial. Your not liking him isn't good enough.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie

Not at all.. We are telling you your argument based on the popular vote is invalid because its not used to elect the president. Secondly you arent going to get enough electors to break the law that would drop trump under the 270 mark. Third you arent going to get enough electors to flip to Clinton to elect her.

Finally some of those faithless electors will be removed and replaced per state law to vote for the person who won the state.

Clinton and her mindless temper tantrum throwing crybabies lost. Accept it.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull




Not illegal. No. Not right, most assuredly so.

Depends on the state, many have their own laws that do indeed make it illegal.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

I think they're untested laws though. They could be unconstitutional, we've only very rarely had any more than one faithless elector at a time so there hasn't been any reason to bring said law before the courts.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: Vector99

I think they're untested laws though. They could be unconstitutional, we've only very rarely had any more than one faithless elector at a time so there hasn't been any reason to bring said law before the courts.


So, to folks like you, something being "illegal" is debatable? Like, I don't know, immigrating into this country illegally is OK. Yeah, laws do not apply to you and your kind. Only to the deplorables that you have no time to speak with or listen to, yet expend vast amounts of energy to demean and and denigrate at every turn.

No thanks. I do not want to live under that type of rule.
SMH.

edit on 12/2/2016 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: Vector99

I think they're untested laws though. They could be unconstitutional, we've only very rarely had any more than one faithless elector at a time so there hasn't been any reason to bring said law before the courts.

They would have to be proven to be unconstitutional, in which case the burden of proof would lie upon the accuser. I still haven't seen any written laws that would make the individual state laws unconstitutional, and in fact the electoral college was framed in a manner as to allow states that right to legislate their own process.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

You are, of course, correct. I forgot that.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I will go on the record and tell you right now...

I will be surprised if 5 votes flip.

I expect 2-3 max.

No way 42 votes will flip which would be the only hope that Clinton has. No way. Won't ever happen.
edit on R202016-12-02T20:20:02-06:00k2012Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
So, to folks like you, something being "illegal" is debatable? Like, I don't know, immigrating into this country illegally is OK. Yeah, laws do not apply to you and your kind. Only to the deplorables that you have no time to speak with or listen to, yet expend vast amounts of energy to demean and and denigrate at every turn.

No thanks. I do not want to live under that type of rule.
SMH.


I uh...don't know where you're coming from with that but yes, some laws that make things illegal have been ruled unconstitutional. Like sodomy laws or segregation.

The only time the issue of electors was brought before the SCOTUS was in Ray v. Blair in 1952. There has never been a ruling on the constitutionality of compelling electors to vote for specific candidates.

Hey, if you want to scrap the third branch of government because you don't want to live in a world where laws can be unconstitutional then...go for it.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Uhm not quite.

Any time a law is challenged on violating the US Constitution the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. It can decide to hear the case on the challenge itself.

It also demonstrates why the popular vote is not used - source


Finally, it sets appropriate limits on democratic government by ensuring that popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm and/or take undue advantage of unpopular minorities. In essence, it serves to ensure that the changing views of a majority do not undermine the fundamental values common to all Americans, i.e., freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and due process of law.


like the electoral college...
edit on 2-12-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

So far from what I am seeing the states whose electors want to flip will be removed and other electors placed who will vote the way state law prescribes.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




Uhm not quite. Any time a law is challenged on violating the US Constitution the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. It can decide to hear the case on the challenge itself.

I don't understand your disagreement. That is exactly what I said.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 12:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: RickinVa

So far from what I am seeing the states whose electors want to flip will be removed and other electors placed who will vote the way state law prescribes.

You are watching too much MSM I suppose.

We (well you made it) did a thread on this, only certain states allow replacement of electors, Michigan is one of those. Most states don't have faithless elector laws that are effective.

Michigan SHOULD be the standard regarding electors and their votes.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Not really no with the exception of the Democratic faithless electors. So you are partially correct there.

7 Electors violating the law.

Texas - Required to vote for the winner.
Art Sisneros, a Republican elector from Texas - resigned rather than vote for Trump.
GOP rules State of Texas
Texas State Law 192.005 - VOTE REQUIRED FOR ELECTION

The set of elector candidates that is elected is the one that corresponds to the candidates for president and vice-president receiving the most votes.




Washington State - Required to vote for winner
Bret Chiafolo, A Democratic Elector - launched a campaign to convince electors of both parties to abandon their pledges and instead vote for a moderate Republican.
Washington state law - Elector voting

If an elector votes for a person not nominated by the party for which they are an elector, they are subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000.



Colorado - Required to vote for winner
Michael Baca, A Democratic Elector - launched a campaign to convince electors of both parties to abandon their pledges and instead vote for a moderate Republican.
Levi Guerra - A Democratic Elector - Will do anything to keep trump out of office.
Bob Nemenich - A Democratic Elector - Faithless.
Jerad Sutton - A Democratic Elector - Faithless.
Polly Bac - A Democratic Elector - Faithless (not related to Michael)
Colorado state law - electors

Following the presidential election, Colorado’s nine designated electors meet in the Governor’s office to cast their votes for president and vice president. In 2016, the electors will meet on December 19, which is the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.
Under Colorado law, each presidential elector must vote for the presidential and vice-presidential candidates who received the highest number of votes in Colorado’s General Election.



All electors from Washington State and Colorado are Democratic Electors who will not vote for Clinton as required under state law.
The one elector from Texas is Republican.
edit on 3-12-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-12-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 22  23  24    26  27 >>

log in

join