Huffington Post: The Electoral College Was Designed to Prevent Trump...Make This Happen.

Trump can still be stopped. The Founding Fathers foresaw just this catastrophe, and built a fail-safe into the Constitution. It’s called the Electoral College. Alexander Hamilton was explicit: this mechanism was designed to ensure that “the office of president will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” In short, it was designed to prevent just this situation: the rise of an unqualified demagogue like Donald Trump.

You can make it do what it was meant to do.

The requirement here is modest: a small group of Republican electors must be persuaded to vote their conscience.
SOURCE

The term "sedition" came up in another thread on this forum concerning the concept described in the thread above. The way I see it, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I don't see how it can be called illegal to follow the supreme law of the land. I don't see how it can be called going against the intended democratic process. The democratic process at the federal level in America is only what the Constitution and/or the federal courts say it is.

With that said, I want to see the will of the people honored. I believe it will be. Unless the Constitution is changed or the federal courts decide otherwise, the article linked above contains a valid argument within the system of the United States.

I'd say "sedition" is a fair description. They are literally calling for the democratic process to be overthrown.

a reply to: Profusion

Or it could start a civil war.

Okay, so the electoral college was designed to bypass the will of the people?

Maine voted nearly a 50/50 split between these despicable characters, but our electoral college voted 3:1 for the thieving wench over the sweaty game show host.
Are you saying they should have ignored more than half of the state population and gone all in for the known cheat?

It's essentially a coup. You have about .3% of the population trying to impose their will on the other 99.7%.

a reply to: avgguy

No where near 99.7 percent of people voted Trump, and that is a fact. Hillary secured more of the popular vote than Trump during the election, and only the electoral college won it for him.

I also hate Hillary and believe that she is dirtier than a sewer main, but the people's voice was NOT reflected in the result of the election.

Nothing like non partisan news sources, making America Grate -
Our teeth against each other

"Unqualified demagogue?"
And who gets to determine that pray tell?
Or that just a general brush off to any regular citizen who dares to run for public office?
He's a US citizen over 35 years of age.
I didn't know there were other requisite qualifications.

Also, the purpose of the Electoral College system is the same as the purpose of the Senate: to make sure the small states aren't totally ignored. If we elected the president by direct popular vote, then the candidates would do all of their campaigning in New York, Chicago, and southern California. Everybody else would be ignored, and after a few election cycles at most, the country would disintegrate.

Again, this kinda detritus is exactly why Trump won and proves that the right candidate DID win. (Can't believe I'm saying that, but the evidence bares out).

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
Also, the purpose of the Electoral College system is the same as the purpose of the Senate: to make sure the small states aren't totally ignored. If we elected the president by direct popular vote, then the candidates would do all of their campaigning in New York, Chicago, and southern California. Everybody else would be ignored, and after a few election cycles at most, the country would disintegrate.

Exactly. The Electoral vote is not the result of a popular national election, it is the result of 50 individual popular elections.

actually the right answer to this problem is a constitutional amendment requiring all states to distribute electors proportionally to the vote by district. the winner take all set up in most states is why this happened.

a reply to: Profusion

Democrats are a confusing bunch. First Obama said Trump would never be President but then invites him over to the WH and declares him President. Podesta told everyone to go home, they would re-evaluate things. Then Hillary calls Trump and say no, I quit.

Now all the liberal media is saying wait a minute, if you take this and that, double it, then cut it in half....blah blah blah.

It's over with. All this chatter is coming from angry angry people that are, at the end of the day sore losers. Probably the worse sore losers on the planet.

a reply to: TrueBrit

There are only about a million signatures... do the math.

a reply to: TrueBrit

But let's be clear, if her vote lead holds, she merely won a plurality of the vote- not the majority. People seem to forget there were other presidential candidates. In that regard, more people voted against her than for her.

a reply to: Profusion

Their interpretation is a bastardization of the intent of the electoral college.

The EC was designed to give smaller, less populous states a role in electing the president. It wasn't intended to be used as a means of changing the outcome through subversion of the vote of the majorities in those states. And that's exactly what would be necessary. In order to turn that many electoral votes, you're going to need to go against the popular vote of the states that those electoral votes are assigned to. It IS sedition and is completely corrupting the purpose of the EC and would greatly threaten our Constitutional government.

a reply to: avgguy

Please, be more expansively detailed about precisely what you mean by that?

The floor is yours.

a reply to: TrueBrit

It was reflected because thats how our elections work.

originally posted by: Profusion
With that said, I want to see the will of the people honored.

You are contradicting yourself. If that is what you want, why are you promoting attempts to circumvent the will of the people, as recently declared in the electoral process established by law?
Or perhaps perhaps you have a different, more restricted defintion of "the people"? The fascist rioters of Oakland are "the people" and anyone who votes for Trump is not?
"No doubt you are the people, and wisdom will die with you!" (Job ch12 v2)

a reply to: Profusion

Yes, the Constitution is the law of the land. The electoral college is set up to do what is best for the country. Do you really think it is best for the country to ignore that half the population voted for the candidate that won? I don't think so. At this point in time, being an 'unfaithful voter' in the electoral college could literally start a civil war. You think that they want that responsibility? If I was in their position, I would vote as my state voted and I would have a clear conscience, even if it had been for Hillary.

originally posted by: Khaleesi
Do you really think it is best for the country to ignore that half the population voted for the candidate that won?

She did not get half of the vote. No one did.