D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
By not honoring the winner-takes-all rules that are part of 48 states? The electors are obligated to honor the popular vote in their specific state for the most part.
Petition for Electors to elect Hillary Clinton
- Thread starter Veelk
- Start date
- Status
By not honoring the winner-takes-all rules that are part of 48 states? The electors are obligated to honor the popular vote in their specific state for the most part.
There's a high chance that the chief of staff of this administration is going to be a literal white supremacist.
No, it was broken before then. This is the second time in two decades that a President has been elected without the approval of a majority of the American public.
biggersmaller
Banned
Wars are fought over shit like this. Hillary lost. The popular vote never had anything to do with getting anyone elected and nobody said we lived in a majority rules democracy. If you feel we should change things, then organize by joining the protesters and get motivated politically to get voting rules altered for the next election.
It is over.
It is over.
Ray Wonder
Founder of the Wounded Tagless Children
As much as I don't like donald I would probably petition if this happened. He won, we need to accept it.
Thank you. I'm sick and tired of seeing "get over it" used as a way to shut down a conversation and ultimately, a protest.
You should be ashamed if you would back down from any way to get him out of office. People are dying and scared. He will probably put us into another war. History will wonder why we didn't do everything we could to stop him.
The same one that wrote this into the constitution?
In some states yes, but not others. The rules of the electoral college allows for faithless electors. I believe it should be abolished and replaced with STV. But if the EC's flipped, unfortunately, it's part of the system.
Galactic Specter
Member
something something famous borg quote
Jangowuzhere
Banned
You're typing complete nonsense.
We've had 200 years of presidents, and the people begrudgingly accepted them. Did they have to support them? Absolutely not, and I would never encourage anyone to support Trump.
Steve Bannon is going be Chief of Staff. Do you know who he is?
Trigonometrize.
Member
Getting over his win via the EC and getting over fighting him and everything he stands for these next four years are completely different. Not one person is saying the latter.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
No president has ever been elected with the approval of a majority of the American public.
Many presidents are elected by the approval of a plurality of voters, who are a subset of registered voters, who are a subset of enfranchised adults (excluding in many cases felons but also noncitizens and others), who are a subset of the American public. It's true this president, like Bush 2000, doesn't even have that.
The best we can hope for, as in Obama 2008/2012, is presidents elected with the approval of a majority of voters who are a subset of ... ... ... But, say, Clinton 1992 or Clinton 1996 isn't illegitimate even though they don't have majority voter support.
There are tons of assumptions that go into social choice rules.
The provisional state vote tally -> electoral vote translation formula ALSO doesn't have anything to do with anyone get elected -- the decisions of electors do, which is why that's where the petition focuses its (wasted) energies on forcing electors to act faithlessly. Again, this isn't going to happen and the people launching this are aimlessly grieving and change.org is a joke and all that, but the rebuttal to the petition is popular legitimacy, not "this is the rules of the system", because what the petition is asking for is absolutely within the rules of the system.
I think people seem to have pretty grave misconceptions about how their electoral system works!
CassidyIzABeast
Member
Listen man. The day to stop Trump from being your president was Tuesday and a lot of ya didn't show up and Hillary did a shit tier job of campaigning.
Take the L and keep it moving. Come back stronger in 2018.
Take the L and keep it moving. Come back stronger in 2018.
The Chosen One
Member
This is beyond dumb.
November 8th was your chance to vote and to advocate others to do the same. Any attempt to reverse the results in such a manner is at best silly and at worst dangerous. What if Trump supporters tried to reverse the election results? We would claim they were trying to start a Civil War.
I think the only way Trump would be removed from office in the near term would be due to some scandal such as treason/colluding with Russia that couldn't be refuted whatsoever. And in that case, we would get President Pence or President Paul Ryan (depending how deep the scandal was), but Hilary or any other Democrat would not be put into the Presidency. Nor should they. If we don't follow our laws and rules, the country will literally fall apart.
The next best time to get Democrats in power is 2 years from now in the next midterms.
November 8th was your chance to vote and to advocate others to do the same. Any attempt to reverse the results in such a manner is at best silly and at worst dangerous. What if Trump supporters tried to reverse the election results? We would claim they were trying to start a Civil War.
I think the only way Trump would be removed from office in the near term would be due to some scandal such as treason/colluding with Russia that couldn't be refuted whatsoever. And in that case, we would get President Pence or President Paul Ryan (depending how deep the scandal was), but Hilary or any other Democrat would not be put into the Presidency. Nor should they. If we don't follow our laws and rules, the country will literally fall apart.
The next best time to get Democrats in power is 2 years from now in the next midterms.
freenudemacusers
Member
thread reeks of slacktivism. maybe engage those around you who support a candidate you don't like vs shutting them out/blocking them on facebook/cry about them on gaf.
wanderingprostheyltite
Member
Not like it's gonna happen but what would it take on a state, national, and govt level to dismantle the EC? I'm assuming a shit ton of hearings in DC/state legislature in concert with something on an actual ballot the people would vote for.
I don't want this to happen either... She lost. The people spoke with their votes.
But this is something ppl need to really, really think about.
Has there ever been a time a Republican candidate had a campaign filled with so much insanity as his?
Sometimes folks... It's not about winning n losing. That should be obvious.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
You know that's not true.
Several of the "get over it" posters have said they voted for Trump here or in some other thread.
This.
46% of eligible voters didn't vote and I'm guessing a good number of them were against Trump. It's been embarrassing to see people on my Facebook, who I know personally, that have been complaining about Trump winning and didn't bother to go out and Vote. As much as it sucks, he won fair and square.
It's the question that everyone asks when studying tyrants. "Why didn't people stand up? Why couldn't they see how terrible he was?"
It's time to face the music: If Trump showed zero restraint during his campaign when he had zero political power, what makes you think he's going to show restraint when he has all of it?
SporeCrawler
Member
honestly
what kind of constitutional and political power would clinton have after being elected like that?
what kind of constitutional and political power would clinton have after being elected like that?
Wow, and both were Democratic nominees. Come on.
Trigonometrize.
Member
Nah. I didn't protest the EC going into the election, voted for Clinton, positively supported her and her campaign, and I still lost. Not going to be ashamed that I'm not spending the next month pleading electors to be unfaithful. So many problems going on in this country right now that it looks foolish.
Tal Shiar Agent
Banned
When Voter ID laws and other suppression efforts lowered turnout in key states like North Carolina and Michigan I wouldn't exactly call it fair.
It actually would be a very bad position to be in since the House and Senate are Republican controlled. She would get absolutely zero cooperation on anything she tried to do.
Spiral Insanity
Banned
We will finally be taking a livable earth away from our great grandchildren, after a scandalously populist and manipulative campaign.
The racism, fascism, sexism and religious terrorism (anti abortion laws etc.) that comes with it is just the icing on the cake.
The racism, fascism, sexism and religious terrorism (anti abortion laws etc.) that comes with it is just the icing on the cake.
Well there are rules and traditions. The "rules" are that they vote the way they want. The "tradition" is that they vote according to how the state voted.
Both should be respected. We shouldn't go into the process on the thought that we're going to respect both, only to disrespect the tradition when it doesn't go our way. That sets an incredibly dangerous precedent. And what would that say about elections in the future? Democracy would effectively be torn apart in America. You can't change the way we play the game in the middle of the game.
Trigonometrize.
Member
How does voting for Trump say anything about how "get over it" means "stop fighting your president for the next four years"? If anyone actually is saying the latter, than fuck them, but I haven't really seen it.
ShironRedshift
Member
It makes perfect sense. I mean, it's never going to happen of course, but the premises are sound. Faithless electors are part of the way the system is set up. If we don't use that in a situation like this, then when exactly do they use that power exactly? Why exactly do they have it and why not remove that power if that's how you feel? But as it stands, it's a built in part of the system and so...
Like, as someone who wants to avoid Trump becoming President through legal means and turn sentiment against the electoral college, this makes perfect sense. Faithless electors pick Clinton instead and people hate that do they push for an amendment to get rid of the thing as a result. It's also a recognition of actual democracy at the same time because she's got the popular vote despite the electoral vote disparity. If course, it's rather nuts considering using such an undemocratic vehicle to protect a democratic result, but it that's what it takes...
Of course, this discussion is purely academic. It's never going to happen. But the fact that this is an academic discussion begs the question of why we hold on to these functions at the same time. If we accept the validity of electing our President via EVs, we also have to accept the validity of faithless electors since that's part of the same package. Can't have one without the other as things stand. So that being the case, what's the problem with it being the electors who decide since we've already accepted that's what it comes down to and that's what we use instead if the popular vote. The premises are sound.
But again, purely academic so doesn't matter much in the end.
That's my point. People are still completely fucking blind and I'm guessing a lot in this thread protected by white privilege. He could build concentration camps for Muslims and people would still be brushing it aside.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Logically, choosing Trump would mean the person thought they were the best choice for president, so why would they be encouraging people to fight against him
Damerman
Member
this is horseshit... isn't the whole point of the electoral college to avoid electing demagogues like Trump?
Gaylord Sweetwood
Member
Don't need to add what has already been said many times in this thread, but I will say that I don't think Clinton is off the hook yet anyway. The Clinton Foundation is still under FBI investigation.
Does it even matter? A powerless president would be infinitely better than the powder-keg despot that we have with Trump.
People are dying since Trump's victory? When did this happen? History will see that we had the chance to stop him, but Hillary was the best they could come up with.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
If you want to get rid of the electoral college, it would take a constitutional amendment to remove the electoral college, which would require the standard requirements for a constitutional amendment. This would not happen.
If you want to make the electoral college useless, there are two major pathways. One is to amend the constitution to grant control of elections to the federal government rather than the states, and have the federal government conduct the election in such a way that the electoral college outcome matches the national popular vote. This will also not happen.
The most plausible pathway is the NPVIC (National Popular Vote Interstate Compact). This is basically a contract between states to agree to give their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. It's been signed by enough states for about 130 electoral votes of the 270 you need. The way it works is that as soon as enough states have signed in, the contract will go live. So right now California has signed in, but the contract isn't live, so California gives all its EVs to the state winner. But when enough states agree, all those states will switch overnight. So imagine that 280 EVs worth agree, and the other states don't. The other states will allocate their electoral votes based on state winners, but the states that agree will give all 280 EVs in a bloc to the national popular vote winner. So the states that don't agree no longer matter, and we effectively have a national popular vote election.
You can read about this here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
I recently posted in PoliGaf a series of journal articles debating the merits of the proposal:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=223113199&postcount=16882
Of course even in that situation there could be faithless electors. As of right now, we depend on electors deferring to norms that ask that they obey their state's election results. That's how the American electoral system works.
We're fucked either way.
This is part of the game. The electoral college was created precisely so that we didn't have a mob democracy.
No, I'm going to go with the GAF mentality and that is "she is going to win in a landslide, so I dont need to get out of the house, off the computer and go vote."
Spiral Insanity
Banned
Let the earth go? You want us to all sing la-la-la as those in power deny climate change in exchange for personal gains?
Here's a thought, since the US Government's decisions on climate change will affect the rest of the world, Europe and Asia should join forces in imposing trade sanctions on the US.
Damerman
Member
i don't give a fuck. I'm not accepting trump.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
If you want to characterize it as rules and traditions, then only rules are legally binding, and traditions are what we make of them. I agree that not respecting the traditions could be the cause of significant protest (just as the EC and the popular vote splitting in 2000 was a cause of significant protest). I agree that in general the outcome that generates the least unrest is electors not being faithless. I just don't think there's anything inherently illegitimate with using powers you have under the election system, and it's weird to see people say "Respect the Electoral College Process... Except The Part Of The Process That You Shouldn't Respect".
Hell, if you really want to appeal to tradition, the VERY FIRST contested election (1796, Adams v. Jefferson) in the US almost swung the other way because of faithless electors. Even then everyone knew that was part of the game.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked