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

a reply to: spiritualzombie

If the EC votes "strange" on Dec 19, joint session of congress on Jan 3 or Jan 6 (cant remember) can fix that. The system was designed to stop this changing of the rules.

You want no EC? Amend the constitution. Requires 38 states. 35 states have a republican governor and congress. only 3 more to go and the GOP can write the rules.

So the anti-Electoral College crowd needs to think about how they are going to proceed.

Man why are these lefties such bigots?

Look at Brexit too

originally posted by: TurkmenAlevi
Man why are these lefties such bigots?

Look at Brexit too

Seriously, I think the only way to deal with the Right calling the Left Bigots - - is laughter.

Ultimately it is just my opinion that the Electors should uphold the vote of the people rather than veto millions of votes. The Electoral College is not meant to undermine equality, it's meant to protect the values and principles of the country.

If Trump had won the popular vote and lost the EC, I would STILL believe the EC should move to vote Hillary. Why? Simple- Trump's campaign and policies are not in accordance with the principles and values of our country. He is exactly the kind of candidate the EC was designed to protect the U.S. from. That's the reality of a campaign that fed anger and division, called on foreign nations to interfere, supported violent war crimes, racial profiling, and the jailing of his opponent.

For that reason I believe the EC should wake up to the responsibility they have-- the reason for their existence, and uphold the principles of the United States by electing the winner already chosen by the people.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

Is it safe for us all to assume that on the next election you either won't vote, or will be voting for the candidate who wants to change the system to the way you think it should work?

Was Hillary intending to change this electoral college situation? I'm assuming you voted for her.

You seem to care about this issue quite deeply, so I'm just wondering why you're not supporting a candidate, if one exists - who wants to implement your system.

Why do you vote and partake in a system you don't agree with? I don't vote for exactly that reason... it's not so much the rules or the gameplay that irks me as it is the lack of decent candidates. Call me cynical - but I think money is a poor incentive when it comes to finding people with a passion for their chosen career.

Still...why are you in support of any candidate who is ignoring this issue that you claim to care so much about? I mean, you SEEM pretty steadfast in your convictions but it smacks bad sportsmanship and nothing more. It'd be far more believable if you hadn't partook in the election or supported a particular candidate that desn't espouse your alleged views on the whole process.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TurkmenAlevi
Man why are these lefties such bigots?

Look at Brexit too

Seriously, I think the only way to deal with the Right calling the Left Bigots - - is laughter.

For once I agree with you, it is laughable. But moreso because it is true.

Yes, yes, this reminds me of the whole Brexit thing. There were some random assaults, tears, cries and protests. I suppose it's ok to lash out violently at folk if you have tried and convicted them as 'bigots' within your social circle.

It's ok to beat up Trump supporters because a certain group of free-thinking liberals decided that voting Trump is baaaaad.

It is funny, it's funny because it's such blatant, overt hypocrisy yet they continue to pretend they're so righteous.

It's funny because they're so stupid, they actually think they can pull off that 'hidden in plain sight' type junk and nobody will notice...when we all noticed, immediately.

Yet it goes on - it's funny because it's the most epic stupid ever, in glorious technicolour for the world to see. I love the internet.

I love you, Annee.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

Luckily the people did not vote for that person. They voted for the reasonable candidate who represents our values. I see no reason for the Electors to vote against the people's choice for president. They should uphold that choice and cast their votes for Clinton.

I bet Trump won the popular vote as well. The real one, where only living people who are eligible to vote, voted once.

originally posted by: BrokedownChevy
Also, with the scale so heavily tipped in favor of Clinton in the popular vote...

...tipped so heavily? Really? Compared against the number of eligible voters in the US, the difference between the two is a fraction of a percent. "Heavily tipped" it certainly isn't.

I still reckon that Trump is behind encouraging Stein to push for a recount & investigation. He knows what it will uncover. Just because he's promised not to go after Clinton directly, doesn't mean he'll not convince someone else to do it (whether they realize this or not).

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
I'd like to point out there's a lot of diversity in those large population areas. In the middle ground states, not so much. I'm not sure exactly why people think individuals in less diverse, smaller populated areas are more important and should have more value placed on their vote. Seems to violate the principles of equality to believe people in CA and NY should matter less just because they live in a large city, and yet those are the attitudes I see reflected in this thread. This idea that CA should matter less because too much of the population lives there. How does that make sense?

Because urban centers have different considerations to rural areas.

Ask some guy in an apartment if he'd be happy with his neighbors spreading manure all around their property. What's that, he doesn't like the idea? Hmm, ask him if we should pass a law to stop it. What's that, he wants a law to be passed? Ok, it's done. Unfortunately all those poor farmers can't raise their crops anymore, what a shame, but apartment guy doesn't care because it doesn't affect him. Food grows in shops, after all.

I'd say that this example is taking things to ludicrous extremes, but people genuinely can be this stupid.

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."

I find this article rather silly considering more than half of all eligible voters in the US either did not register or did not vote. Can't really say it's the will of the people can we? The will of the people that voted maybe.

Anywho....can't wait until the crying subsides and we can actually get on with our days without every single MSM outlet writing about how HRC should be declared the winner.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
Ultimately it is just my opinion that the Electors should uphold the vote of the people

They are upholding the vote of the people. In each state Trump won. That's how it works.

Both parties knew exactly the rules before playing the game. Both parties knew this could be the outcome.

She lost the game. I hate to say this, but it really truly is time to get over it.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
I'd like to point out there's a lot of diversity in those large population areas. In the middle ground states, not so much. I'm not sure exactly why people think individuals in less diverse, smaller populated areas are more important and should have more value placed on their vote. Seems to violate the principles of equality to believe people in CA and NY should matter less just because they live in a large city.

I agree.

I do understand Representative Government and the purpose of the Electoral College.

But, things change.

The world and politics is more International then ever.

Yet, we've just let the Bible Belt and the Rust Belt pick our leader.

Blame Hillary she couldnt be bothered to talk to those people in the rust belt, if she does what her husband reportedly urged her to do she wins in a walk...

Instead she listened to her sycophants and lost to Donald fricking trump...there is nobody to blame for this other than hillary, and the DNC.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

The Electors are PLEDGED for the Candidate their Party Voted for .

originally posted by: DISRAELI
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.

I don't know what you mean by 'ardent,' but several electors are not such ardent supporters of their party that they support the candidates they are pledged to support. Some have stated they won't vote as they pledged (Trump and/or Hillary) and some will not vote as they pledged....*dun dun dun*

....with the expressed GOAL that it will undermine the electoral college system and result in abolishing it. How's that for a fine 'how do you do?'

(Thanks, DNC, for actually selecting electors that don't even support the electoral college system and want it abolished! I don't feel set-up...nope, not at all. *heavy sarcasm*)

originally posted by: Irishhaf

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
I'd like to point out there's a lot of diversity in those large population areas. In the middle ground states, not so much. I'm not sure exactly why people think individuals in less diverse, smaller populated areas are more important and should have more value placed on their vote. Seems to violate the principles of equality to believe people in CA and NY should matter less just because they live in a large city.

I agree.

I do understand Representative Government and the purpose of the Electoral College.

But, things change.

The world and politics is more International then ever.

Yet, we've just let the Bible Belt and the Rust Belt pick our leader.

Blame Hillary she couldnt be bothered to talk to those people in the rust belt, if she does what her husband reportedly urged her to do she wins in a walk...

Instead she listened to her sycophants and lost to Donald fricking trump...there is nobody to blame for this other than hillary, and the DNC.

And Trump's mouth catered to anyone he could fool.

a reply to: Annee

I voted third party, But I understand why people voted trump.

I think when its all said and done he will be a centrist, with a left lean to him... simply because that will be best for his buisness.

a reply to: Annee

...and she didn't?

That's what politician do. They pander. They lie.

Trump lied/pandered? Well, color me shocked. She who shall not be named lied/pandered? Again...shocked.

Is there any such thing as a pander-free politician? Somehow, I doubt it. They all try to portray themselves as all things to all people, and we continue to lap it up like a bunch of idiots.

If the majority of the country chooses one candidate over another to lead said country but the system chooses the candidate with fewer votes then the system is broken.

The electoral college was created with the specific purpose of not allowing the general populace to elect the president, your vote for president doesn't matter. Most of us don't even get to choose our electors or know how.

It's an ineffective system just like allowing the senate to be chosen by state legislatures was. It should be changed.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
I think when its all said and done he will be a centrist, with a left lean to him... simply because that will be best for his buisness.

I hope, err....wish.

But, Trump is already leaning hard right. I want(ed) to give him a year, but I am quickly creeping back to being suspicious of him and any 'role' he was 'meant' to play in this election (*cough* election crisis).

I am still very concerned that all of this 'President-elect transition' may end up being only a brief glimpse into what a Trump administration *might have been*...Hillary still has her eyes on winning.

I repeat, it is a fact: Hillary Clinton -- the powerful, dirty, connected, untouchable, lifetime political criminal -- still has her eyes on winning.

I believe completely that it could be made to happen. In fact, I believe this election crisis was made to happen because the last 16 years has proven that election crises leads to horrible, horrible, horrible voter/election reforms.

Anyway, if this is just a brief glimpse into what might have been if Trump was president....then Trump is surrounding himself with pretty much the worst of the republican bunch....and many people will thank their lucky stars they dodged a bullet. They will be begging to see the electoral college utterly destroyed forever and always.

Election crises are very scary times. If planned correctly, they can get us to consent to anything.

Honestly people, debating with the op is just pointless. We were having a debat in another thread and i said bow can you praise someone who has been responsible for the deaths of thousands of people in Libya. Responsible for thousands fleeing Libya i to other countries.

And lets not forget helping the terrorists to overthrow gadaffi.

But looming at her emails, she does not mind the help from terrorists every so often if it benafits her.

The Op just ignored all of this. I have to admit, it annoys the hell out of me that so msny prople are brainwashed and conditioned. The OP is a great example of this.

In tbe end, they stopped posting in that thread, but what i have read on this thread, the op seems to be making many threads about this.

But seriously, you are all wasting your time.