Libertarians attempt to prevent ClinTrump from getting 270 electoral votes

What would happen if neither Trump or Clinton reach 270 electoral votes?

The congress will choose the president.Who will they choose?...

Hillary Clinton(D)
Donald Trump(R)
Gary Johnson(L)
Jill Stein(G)
Darrell Castle(C)
Evan McMullin(I)

I think the senate chooses the VP of the top 2 candidates. If the new senate in 2017 is democrat you might see a Johnson(L)/Kaine(D) presidency.If the new senate is republican then they might choose Mike Pence.

What do you think?

I have a feeling it's going to be Bush/Gore 2.0. Trump will get the popular vote, but Clinton will get the electoral college. What happens after is up to the people.

I don't think she will win.

Stein,Johnson both take votes from her. No one really takes votes from Trump.

Wikileaks showing and confirming the rigged primaries alienated the Bernie sanders supporters.

Stein has the left. Johnson is in the middle. Trump has the right.
Clinton is center left.

If Julian Assange releases the October surprise then it gets worse.

a reply to: Konduit

yes. That is true. Know that.

And this country will revolt like its the end of the world, for months.

The media will ignore it, then down play it, then stop showing up for work when life and reality becomes thick, and bricks start flying.

I expect martial law to be ignored, become the joke it will be in this country, really try it,

and then we have half the government take a LONG vacation and trickle back under the new governments radar, for a while, until jail becomes a reality and some an example for all of these bastards...

Then many will make a luxury exodus, and we will break traditional ties with western countries that harbor them.

Then those in exile will launch a more agressive attack on those that shifted the power, which will draw out everyone they thought was happy with them in their now shared kingdom in exile, then they fight each other like times past.

Then the dissolved power structure of the NWO tries too hard to get back what once was, doubles down, and they die off.

Later, their kids try to make a run for power, are found out, killed and their blood lines either finally die or go into obscurity once their wealth is purposely shifted in value out of their hands.

Then we start a new golden age. Those of them that remain are forgiven and allowed to integrate with the rest of us, having already diluted their blood rendering its mention useless, and we move on.

Then our civilization will die, we may as well, and this cycle will be complete.

And then it all happens again.....with a new creation and mankind we will try to see through its infancy.

And our last will die leaving a noble legacy of what was, and a noble comencement for what will be.

I've been hearing chatter about this strategy, sending it to the House of Representatives etc. it just seems monumentally wreckless at a time when tensions are this high. I don't think it's reprehensible or anything, just not a safe move at this point.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Why would a majority Republican or Democratic chamber of Congress vote for a Libertarian or Green?

For the Libertarians or Greens to pull off this strategy, they'll need to have proven allies in both Houses of Congress. For example, they'd need to get 20 or 30 members into the Senate and a good 70 or 80 into the House of Reps. Then they could pull off this strategy and hope their members in Congress can convince the other congressmen/women that the Libertarian or Green Party candidate is the best compromise.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Interesting. They couldn't choose from that list though, it would only be the top three (pursuant to the 12th Amendment) so likely:

Hillary Clinton
Donald Trump
Gary Johnson

IIRC, what happens then isn't that each member of the house gets a vote but rather the Representatives from each state get together to cast a single vote for their state. At the point the winner needs a simple majority with at least 2/3 of states voting. We'd still end up with Trump or Clinton.

The GOP has a majority of the House by a larger margin than at any point since the 30s or 40s. If neither candidate gets 270 electoral votes, it's a virtual certainty that the House would select Trump.

EDIT:

This has only happened once since the passage of the 12th, in 1824. John Quincy Adams ended up President even though he had only 85% of the electoral votes that Andrew Jackson had. There was a charge by Jackson that the election was stolen with the aid of the 4th place candidate in electoral votes, Henry Clay, who was then Speaker of the House and became Adams's Secretary of State (presumably for his part).

Then in 1828 Jackson got twice the electoral votes of Adams.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

There are a few congress people that support GJ.

Or do they elect Trump anyway?

Who knows? It depends on the Never-Trump faction.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

While I'll admit it's a really slim possibility---I can dream.
I think Johnson is taking votes that Trump would otherwise get. He'll get them from disgruntled Repubs. He's also getting them from disgusted Dems. It's the best chance a third party candidate has had since Teddy Roosevelt.
I'm really encouraged by the number of folks I talk with who say they're done voting for the lesser of the evils. They would rather vote for someone with which they don't always agree than to vote for yet another bankster puppet or war monger. People of both parties now seem more willing to consider a third party candidate if that candidate can demonstrate leadership ability. The Libertarian party has a slate that is truly impressive in that regard.
If we can convince people that this is a serious issue, not a sporting event, and get them thinking more about which candidate best represents their hopes and dreams, we have a shot at winning. But the media and the two major parties want it presented as a sporting event and want us all to think we must vote for the candidate most likely to win rather than using our God-given reason and thinking about who has the proven ability to lead and to cut back government.
Sadly, I think Trump will win. He won't be the best leader and he'll have an awful time getting anything done. Johnson would be the best leader and could bring about some compromises on things both sides claim to want to do.
At this point voting for either major party is insane. They're proven failures.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

True. I could've also seen the "Bernie Democrats" doing this with Jill Stein, if Bernie would've backed her.

But the possible backlash from their Democratic & Libertarian constituents would be a deal breaker. As in, their partisan constituents might feel betrayed & take it out on those politicians, especially if the opposing "side" won because the politician didn't vote along party lines.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Great points. Even so a lot of Bernie sanders supporters are looking into Jill Stein.

Have you seen the Jill Stein on Fox and CNN?

On Fox it was like she was a unicorn or something.

I don't agree with her policies but she's better than Hillary by a mile.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman


for this scenario to work, a third party would have to win a state to get it's electoral votes.


which state do you think a third party could win?

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman


electoral votes are to whomever wins a state.

I can't see anyone but Trump or Clinton winning a state. Johnson might get some decent vote numbers (certainly more than 1.6% like last time), but where is he going to win a plurality???

Utah,Minnesota,New Mexico,Alaska,Vermont and Wyoming.

We'll see which one he will win.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman
Presumably this would only work if Republican congressmen really hate Trump enough to vote in another non-Democrat instead.
Do they?

I am a disgruntled Republican. After the primaries, I was looking at Johnson. Trump is catching my interest, but I am still thinking third party. Honestly, though, if Trump keeps up as he has this past week and Johnson doesn't make it into the debates...Come November, I may leave Johnson and vote Trump. Clinton is forcing me to make this decision. I can't imagine what the DNC is thinking! Anyone but Clinton could beat Trump! Sigh.

I will admit, I do not see Johnson having any pull with electorates unless he gets more attention in the general election debates. If he does, the two party system in DC, may very well leave 2/3 of this country highly dissatisfied.

Just now awaiting to see what the debates bring before making a final decision.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Wrong. She's better by approximately 4.3 miles. I counted.


But yeah, I still may vote for Stein (didn't see her on Fox). Right now my State's race isn't looking very close, so she'll get my vote. But if things tighten up and it looks like some Repubs can get unseated out here, I'll vote for Hillary.

I want the Green Party to do better & get access to federal matching funds. But I'm completely disappointed by their lack of a grassroots campaign out here. They're virtually nonexistent, having little more than a website. So it's hard to rally people around their ideas when there's virtually no one here to answer their questions directly (not to mention, they're never present during good or bad times).

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman
Weld got 70% of the vote in Mass in his second election to governor. That's pretty impressive to me. He could well pull in a lot of Democrats that are dissatisfied with the party at present. He has a pretty impressive resume and knows his way around DC. I do so hope they get into the debates.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Wrong. She's better by approximately 4.3 miles. I counted.

But yeah, I still may vote for Stein (didn't see her on Fox). Right now my State's race isn't looking very close, so she'll get my vote. But if things tighten up and it looks like some Repubs can get unseated out here, I'll vote for Hillary.

I want the Green Party to do better & get access to federal matching funds. But I'm completely disappointed by their lack of a grassroots campaign out here. They're virtually nonexistent, having little more than a website. So it's hard to rally people around their ideas when there's virtually no one here to answer their questions directly (not to mention, they're never present during good or bad times).

She mentioned thimerosal in vaccines on national TV in a negative light.

"Green Party candidate Jill Stein promises to label GMOs, end industry influence over regulatory agencies if elected president"

www.naturalnews.com...

Direct swipe at Monsanto.