Petition for Electors to elect Hillary Clinton

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mikey Jr. said:
So change the ruleset beforehand.

I'm sorry, but everyone who signs that petition is dumb and you really shouldn't be allowed to vote anymore.

You can't have someone win, then say "Actually, you didn't win. We're changing the rules right now, the other person won because reasons"
Click to expand...

"Hitler won fair and square, we can't be mad about dying in gas chambers."

In 2 years see where we are and tell everyone not challenging the result was the right decision. When the world has been run into the ground, and you can stand proud that you preserved the sanctity of the EC.
 
Dicktatorship said:
Democracy is only okay when it goes my way.
Click to expand...

.

I understand the results of this election are painful, scary, and hurtful to a lot of people. I understand the implications of a Trump presidency are weird, disturbing, and extremely unpredictable. All that said, he won according to the rules of our democratic process, and that result should absolutely be respected. I feel like I'm wearing this one out, but people need to get a grip.

Look to our leaders for guidance on this, especially President Obama. He has been extremely graceful in the wake of this result and has committed strongly to a peaceful transition of power.
 
PeakPointMatrix said:
If this "happens", prepare for civil war.

This isn't hyperbole. We fucking made our bed with this bullshit and now we have to deal with it, as much as it hurts. We have to start planning for the future.
Click to expand...
Heh, what's the difference for we minorities really? What else is really new in the history of this country--it always comes down to us having to defend our rights kicking and screaming every single time, from Abolition, to Suffrage, to the Civil Rights Movement, to Stonewall, etc. If our rights are going to be taken away, it might as well be with a fight to know who's truly with us and who isn't. If we just sit back and accept that instead and let them be taken with a whimper...
 
TatorTots said:
According to CNN earlier that has a small chance of changing...

Either way both parties have benefited from the ec. Wanting to change that now would be insane. That's never going away.
Click to expand...
lol I'm pretty sure the EC has only benefited Republicans. I don't think a single dem president has won the election without winning the popular vote.
 
Fracas said:
Has this ever happened before? I feel like doing this would negate our entire electing process. Elections become wholly irrelevant when one group can change the outcome at will.
Click to expand...

Sort of. Not quite a faithless elector scheme like this, but in 1876, the election was messed up in that both candidates pretty much tied and a bunch of weird quirks with the electoral college affected the result and many people felt the resulting president was illegitimate. You can read about the clusterfuck here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1876#Electoral_disputes

Then besides that there was a plan to swing the 1796 election, but it didn't happen in the end.
 
If this were to happen, the current spate of hateful behavior and rhetoric would not register on the Richter scale required to measure the reaction.
 
From James Madison in Federalist Papers Number 10.


AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a wellconstructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

................

The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted.Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:
Click to expand...
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp


James Madison envisioned the exact scenario we are facing today. He believed that the Electoral College would be a buffer against demagoguery.
 
Damn, people have really lost it on this forum. Promoting the complete subjugation of the democratic process in your country, what could possibly go wrong?
 
Jarmel said:
Because people live there.

Currently the EC gives too many votes to flyover states with low populations.
Click to expand...
Look up tyranny of the majority. There is a reason the EC exists. Do coastal city voters have a modicum of a clue what Idaho wants? Real people with real issues vote in those states and this helps them have a voice.
 
collige said:
Is there a theoretical cap on how harsh these penalties could be? Would captial punishment get struck down as violating the 8th.
Click to expand...

In practice, states have not enforced faithless elector laws (because there's been no need to) and the ones on the book all involve small fines, so you're asking strictly a hypothetical question here.

In response to your latter question, it is not legally resolved. Kennedy v. Louisiana found the death penalty unconstitutional for all crimes not involving murder, but specifically declined to answer whether they included treason, espionage, or terrorism.

Of course, that opinion was also delivered by Breyer (who is now against capital punishment period), Ginsburg (who is probably against capital punishment period), Stevens (who is retired), Souter (who is retired), and Kennedy. I have no idea if Sotomayor or Kagan is against capital punishment in this regard. That would require Kennedy to seek a coalition with conservative justices. The dissenters in Kennedy v. Louisiana (i.e. who thought the death penalty could apply to non-murder charges) were Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia (who is now dead). Given a 4-4 tie on the issue, the determination of the constitutionality would return to the circuit court, and how they'd rule would depend on which state you're talking about

If this seems scary it's probably a good idea to:
a) Fill the fucking supreme court vacancy so there's an odd number of people
b) Pass laws that punish or stop faithless electors or end the electoral college or both
c) Abolish the death penalty because it is a tremendous stain on the conscience of the country that Roman barbarism persists today

Of course a and b, it's too late for that now, and c failed as voters around the country proudly cheered for the death penalty. Congrats America.

Edit: Also, before executing the person you'd have to certify the presidential votes in the mean time, otherwise Mike Pence would be acting president in the event that the votes aren't certified due to an ongoing legal dispute. LOL.
 
I'd find both infuriating and hilarious if most of these signs come from people that didn't vote and now they're regretting their choice.
 
kayzai said:
This is just like the remoaners Post-Brexit.
Just accept the result GRACEFULLY, and plan for the next election.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the obstructionist republicans who have been throwing a tantrum for 8 years until they got their way. They didn't gracefully concede. They said he's not our president. They vetoed everything he tried to pass without reading. They voted in all bills he urged them to read and think twice about and then blamed him when they realized what they voted in had negative repercussions. They said they would start a campaign to impeach Clinton if she were elected. All this for policies that EXPANDED THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS that didn't step on the personal freedoms of others. Now you have someone that is going to undo all the progress that miraculously happened and expect people to be complacent, expect people blindly accept policies that trample on our rights, accept a one party ruling class?

People say the US has had a peaceful exchange of power for 230+ years, but that's not true. The U.S.'s inception was revolution. It's gone through a fracturing of the nation and assassination of leaders.If people want to protest this election, if people want to flee the country because of this election, if the next 4 years leads to a swath of constitutional freedoms being taken away from people and quality of life drastically declining, then people should defend their rights. Complacency only makes things worse and I'm sure some people are starting to notice this after tuesday.
 
ShironRedshift said:
Heh, what's the difference for we minorities really? What else is really new in the history of this country--it always comes down to us having to defend our rights kicking and screaming every single time, from Abolition, to Suffrage, to the Civil Rights Movement, to Stonewall, etc. If our rights are going to be taken away, it might as well be with a fight to know who's truly with us and who isn't. If we just sit back and accept that instead and let them be taken with a whimper...
Click to expand...

What's the difference? The complete collapse of society? Complete military rule? Possible nuclear weapons being used? Being taken over by a foreign power?

Why would we assume that righteous people would win a civil war, anyway? Last I checked the gun lovers and militia-types out there typically favor Trump.
 
Metrotab said:
Damn, people have really lost it on this forum. Promoting the complete subjugation of the democratic process in your country, what could possibly go wrong?
Click to expand...


Our democracy actually includes a failsafe in case people choose a nazi for president. that's the real purpose of the EC. to be a buffer just in case someone with amazing charisma but absolutely facist views gets through. Read the post above yours.
 
Metrotab said:
Damn, people have really lost it on this forum. Promoting the complete subjugation of the democratic process in your country, what could possibly go wrong?
Click to expand...
It's part of the process. It's baked in and was there from the start.

In addition there's nothing undemocratic about it since not only is it part if the process but it would act to honor the popular vote. You know... Democracy.

There are legit criticisms and concerns over the idea, but this should not be one.
 
The whole EC vs popular vote thing comes up so much. Did the obama administration ever attempt to change it? Any change.org petition??
 
NoMoreTrolls said:
Look up tyranny of the majority. There is a reason the EC exists. Do coastal city voters have a modicum of a clue what Idaho wants? Real people with real issues vote in those states and this helps them have a voice.
Click to expand...
Do people in Idaho have a modicum of a clue as to what people in NYC want? This can go both ways.
 
Metrotab said:
Damn, people have really lost it on this forum. Promoting the complete subjugation of the democratic process in your country, what could possibly go wrong?
Click to expand...

Electors can and have refused to vote for the candidate their state voted for. That's built into our government.

They can legally vote for Hillary if they want to.

Granted, she'd have to win 20 electors from states that Trump won, and then the Republican controlled Congress would immediately step in and overrule them (they can do that).

It's not impossible, but it is so unlikely as to be highly improbably (more so than a Trump victory ever was).

The best course of action is to gather strength for midterms and to start calling up and writing your senators and congressmen and women...
 
99Luffy said:
The whole EC vs popular vote thing comes up so much. Did the obama administration ever attempt to change it? Any change.org petition??
Click to expand...

It's not a federal matter to change, the president has no capacity to do so.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, there is a somewhat serious ongoing effort to change the electoral college. It is not likely not happen because only Democrats want it to change:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
 
WiiredShawn said:
What are you talking about?

Hillary won the popular vote.

Are you people dense?
Click to expand...

You can't win the Presidency by popular vote. That's like parking as if you're doing a bank job. Oh if Hillary wasn't up there stopped...talking about what a great parker she was and actually parked...she'd have the election by winning the electoral college.

Everything is Metaphor friends...whether it's Lost or Seinfeld. We've been conditioned for this moment. Do you hit the button? Do you park head first or back up? It's all choices and in the end...none of mattered.
 
ShironRedshift said:
It's part of the process. It's baked in and was there from the start.

In addition there's nothing undemocratic about it since not only is it part if the process but it would act to honor the popular vote. You know... Democracy.

There are legit criticisms and concerns over the idea, but this should not be one.
Click to expand...

Faithless electors are dead letter, except in a couple of states.. The EC is a roundabout way of winner-gets-all by census population data. This is how it is interpreted and understood by 95+% of your fellow Americans.
 
Waste of time. You want to fight Trump and the GOP? Get out there and organize and get people motivated to vote for 2018 and 2020.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
FAO of all Brits, sign this petition ASAP
34
1K
Hookshot replied
  • Locked
Canada's election results are in
8
396
Jaybe replied
  • Locked
Getting ads for a far-right party before the election in Germany
17
1K
EviLore replied
White smoke emerges as a new pope is elected
2 3
132
2K
GateofD replied
Mega Man X Fortnite: Sign my stupid petition to try and get Mega Man X -- you guessed it -- into Fortnite
9
1K
AREYOUOKAY? replied
Top Bottom