Support NeoGAF

[MUnited83]

Let's not forget that while the EC may be technically supposed to prevent Trump it is only tolerated these days because it has not gone against the vote.



The US is a representative democracy with a pretty shitty election system but that doesn't make it not a democracy. The original Greek democracy gave each class a number of representatives and the lower class (which was the most numerous) got the fewest.

No, it's a republic. A representative democracy is what the countries with actual decent systems do.

 

[mjp2417]

This appeal to "The Founders' Wisdom" is already so tired. Why privilege what a couple dudes intended their system to be over the thousands and thousands of people who rejected that vision in the hundreds of years since?

This is America. These are the rules of the game. I agree that a sane, decent democracy would elect based upon total votes, regardless of state or skin color, but this is America. Let the electors fight.

 

[TheWasTheJoke]

Would this be your point of view if the president-elect campaigned mostly on scapegoating people who looked like you?

This doesn't really engage with anyone I said dude. I don't doubt Trump will be terrible for minorities. I am sure he will be very bad for the world. But you have to take a wider view, actually think how the 50 million people who voted for Trump and the 300 million who are expecting him to be their president will react when a group of 'liberals' literally steals there election from them. It won't be pretty. This administration is a bunch of rogue neocons, think carefully if you believe there worse than a civil war.

Also the the 'popular vote' people, barely any large scale democracies elect based on the popular vote, Australia doesn't, France doesn't. UK doesn't. Each system has its pro's and con's and to suddenly argue one is superior because it would lead to the better candidate winning once is pretty ignorant of history. In Aus in 2010 the left-wing party with an excellent candidate beat the right-wing demagogue in seats but lost by 500,000 in votes. So it does change

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

This doesn't really engage with anyone I said dude. I don't doubt Trump will be terrible for minorities. I am sure he will be very bad for the world. But you have to take a wider view, actually think how the 50 million people who voted for Trump and the 300 million who are expecting him to be their president will react when a group of 'liberals' literally steals there election from them. It won't be pretty. This administration is a bunch of rogue neocons, think carefully if you believe there worse than a civil war.

Also the the 'popular vote' people, barely any large scale democracies elect based on the popular vote, Australia doesn't, France doesn't. UK doesn't. Each system has its pro's and con's and to suddenly argue one is superior because it would lead to the better candidate winning once is pretty ignorant of history. In Aus in 2010 the left-wing party with an excellent candidate beat the right-wing demagogue in seats but lost by 500,000 in votes. So it does change

Thanks for the non-answer, I guess

 

[JohnDoe]

Give up already. It's not happening.

 

[SuperEpicMan]

These threads seem to make it really clear who the Trump supporters are tbh.

The cost of Trump being president is just too fucking high to say "we lost, get over it" or "the people ave spoken" etc. You are either a Trump supporter yourself, or you are just wilfully ignorant and apathetic.

There is the very real chance of:

The acceleration of climate change.
The suspicious ties to Russia.
Peoples rights getting taken away (i.e. Marriage equality).
Erratic foreign policy already creating feuds with China.
Just to name a few.

Every possible avenue should be considered or taken to try and prevent him from taking office.

 

[nekkid]

Let's for fun say this does happen. Who are they going to elect instead? Clinton?

Nobody with any sense would want to be elected that way - they would be subject to a full term of ridicule. You think Obama had a hard time getting things through a Republican-controlled institution...

In fact, the only sort of people happy to pick up the leftovers of such a situation would be someone as egotistical and power hungry as Trump himself.

 

[YourMaster]

Trump won by the rules that every candidate since Lincoln won on, he has more electoral college votes. Is that democratic? Depends on your point of view, should states vote's or individuals take precedance? In my view it should be the latter but nonetheless the situation it is what it is and infinitely more fair than any alternative. Who else is there, a career Republican hated by both sides? Fucking Hillary?

You have to take a long term view. America right now has a democracy, a flawed one, but pretty good nonetheless. If the electoral college betrayed the people, it wouldn't only be signing its own death warrant, but also that of the nation.

You have to take a long term view. America right now has a ridiculous system, and 'the people' getting fucked over by it might be a little nudge for the people to get their priorities straight and vote for people who want to abolish the idiotic elements that undermine democratic processes. I'm not even going to try and list them all.

 

[KingBroly]

Ray v. Blair is about whether states can force electors to sign a pledge. It doesn't cover what happens when the pledge is reneged upon. It was an issue never considered by the court.

Simply providing a reference point.

Interesting that you say unknown there. If they can vote anonymously, faithlessness increases.

I'm sure they know who did it, but kept it private. The point isn't about "who" but "when" as is "when does it happen?" The answer is not often. If there are faithless electors here, it's the first in 3 cycles.

Keep in mind that the people who are electors are political junkies, the people who want a career in politics. If you're faithless, or they suspect you to be faithless, your career in politics is done. They don't just pick people off the streets for this shit. These are the people in call centers, the people organizing rallies, etc. For the people who want that, there's too much at risk by becoming a faithless elector.

 

[Acosta]

You are just hurting yourself giving credit to these fantasies.

 

[Kinyou]

No way this will happen, but with the Russian interference they would have a good argument to not vote for him

 

[jelly]

I wouldn't be surprised if some rattled the cage to get favours. I don't think they actually care much, just whatever gives them more power and funding to do what they want. Trump will just pacify them.

 

[RM8]

I mean, there's nothing to lose and there's the small hope that global warning won't be accelerated like it's going to be otherwise.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Also the the 'popular vote' people, barely any large scale democracies elect based on the popular vote, Australia doesn't, France doesn't. UK doesn't.

Whilst you are entirely right about some countries not directly electing a president via popular vote, it's not uncommon. For example, Austria recently elected its new president via popular vote, twice. And just because other people don't do something doesn't mean it's a bad idea (that's just an appeal to majority beliefs, which makes no sense when you think about it).

In this case though, I think it's clear that Trump is the president unless electoral law was broken somehow. Everyone in the US who is saddened by this should join their local opposition political party and campaign for a strong Dem vote at mid-terms.

 

[RM8]

Mexico also goes by popular vote. I actually didn't know about the EC until some years ago.

 

[slit]

It is imperative that Democracy is done, you may say the cost this time is too high, until the system is flipped and your candidate loses. Trump will likely be awful but if he is not elected then I really fear for America

None of this is democracy and I fear for the country anyway so it makes no difference.

 

[TheWasTheJoke]

Thanks for the non-answer, I guess

No I'm not part of a minority group (Jewish but I don't think that counts) nor am I american.
Yes I don't really have a stake in Trump winning. However that doesn't mean I don't care, I care deeply. I'm simply arguing that not electing Trump would do more harm that than Trump will realistically in the next 4 years. Maybe I can't properly way up the damage he can do because I won't be affected by his decisions, that is a valid critique, but I try to listen to minority groups and weigh up issues the best I can.

Whilst you are entirely right about some countries not directly electing a president via popular vote, it's not uncommon. For example, Austria recently elected its new president via popular vote, twice. And just because other people don't do something doesn't mean it's a bad idea (that's just an appeal to majority beliefs, which makes no sense when you think about it).

In this case though, I think it's clear that Trump is the president unless electoral law was broken somehow. Everyone in the US who is saddened by this should join their local opposition political party and campaign for a strong Dem vote at mid-terms.

Correct me If I'm wrong, but the President is a symbolic position not a political one. Now I do agree with you that popular vote is probably a better system for electing an executive (although parliamentry + compulsory voting rules above all ftb), not having that doesnt invalidate the results of the election.

 

[Baki]

I wish people would stop giving this fantasy attention. This isn't what we should be focusing on, we need to focus on ways to make Trump's presidency a living hell for him.

Why not focus on that after the EC election in 5 days.

Just do both.

 

[RedHill]

It's unlikely that this changes anything but I still want as many to flip as possible. Let the history books show that people opposed this tyrant.

 

[FyreWulff]

While I'd like them to not elect Trump, what I expect at most is reduction his EC margin constructed on purpose to give him the win but clearly take him below 300 to send him a message that he barely has a mandate.

 

[KingBroly]

Correct me If I'm wrong, but the President is a symbolic position not a political one. Now I do agree with you that popular vote is probably a better system for electing an executive (although parliamentry + compulsory voting rules above all ftb), not having that doesnt invalidate the results of the election.

President in the US is not a symbolic position.

The Electoral College is designed to do many things like prevent against fraud and maintain state sovereignty. If the Presidency was only determined by the popular vote, candidates would only go to California, Texas, Florida and New York, the most heavily populated areas in the country. They wouldn't go to Ohio or North Carolina or Arizona or Colorado or Wisconsin or Virginia etc. Swing states change from election to election, populated cities really don't, which means more states have to be visited during each election.

 

[RedHill]

Peoples rights getting taken away (i.e. Marriage equality).

while a Trump presidency will harm minorities in many ways, can we stop saying this? He can't overturn a Supreme Court decision. Worrying about things he literally can't do is pointless.

 

[FyreWulff]

President in the US is not a symbolic position.

The Electoral College is designed to do many things like prevent against fraud and maintain state sovereignty. If the Presidency was only determined by the popular vote, candidates would only go to California, Texas, Florida and New York, the most heavily populated areas in the country. They wouldn't go to Ohio or North Carolina or Arizona or Colorado or Wisconsin or Virginia etc. Swing states change from election to election, populated cities really don't, which means more states have to be visited during each election.

Everything you've posted in this post have been proven false.

There isn't enough voters in those states to win the PV by just visiting them.

The small states are still ignored.

Candidates visit the states that have narrow margins for either party that can be flipped, because you don't need to win a full majority, just a simple majority of 50.01%

The EC fails at everything it "supposedly" does (enforce small state visits, protect small states, make candidates go after more votes) and does what it was designed to do in the first place (dilute the black citizenry's vote by weighing white votes more than minority votes)

Funny how "states rights" always leads back to slavery, huh?

 

[KingBroly]

while a Trump presidency will harm minorities in many ways, can we stop saying this? He can't overturn a Supreme Court decision. Worrying about things he literally can't do is pointless.

Constitutional Amendment unless it came to a battle over the Church first.

 

[TheWasTheJoke]

President in the US is not a symbolic position.

Was talking about Austrian pres

 

[RedHill]

Constitutional Amendment unless it came to a battle over the Church first.

What are you even saying lol

 

[Mr. X]

This is above some heads in here if

A. You think this is still about Clinton/Dems losing

B. The electoral college doing what it was designed to do is unconstitutional or is slap in the face of Democracy

C. Forcing Red states' electors to pick Trump is constitutional, undermining the design and purpose of electoral college

Like are these the closeted Trump voters/supporters tells?

 

[theCalamity]

Trump won by the rules that every candidate since Lincoln won on, he has more electoral college votes. Is that democratic? Depends on your point of view, should states vote's or individuals take precedance? In my view it should be the latter but nonetheless the situation it is what it is and infinitely more fair than any alternative. Who else is there, a career Republican hated by both sides? Fucking Hillary?

If the electoral college betrayed the people, it wouldn't only be signing its own death warrant, but also that of the nation. Riots would happen, Democrats would be stigmatised for a generation, the constitution would be overhauled by the GOP and a far worse system be put in to satisfy their perverse agenda.

Which politician is better is ultimately subjective. It may seem clear the Dems are better, but remember, we can never prove it. Imagine in 20 years, another pivotal election, except this time the Dem candidate is Satan to half the country. What happens then when good is betrayed?

We must work through the system. Trust must be built. Dems need to give up this futile endeavour and work on showing they are the party of the people and not the elite.

This isn't helping.

Yeah! Trump won by the rules of the Electoral College. We shouldn't use the Electoral College rules to prevent him from being president. We have to work through the system, by not using the system, so that we can win the next round using this system.

 

[KingBroly]

What are you even saying lol

The only way Gay Marriage comes to SCOTUS again is if gay people feel their rights are being infringed by a Church by not allowing them to marry in a Church. But even with a 5-4 Republican court, it won't get overturned due to Kennedy

The other way would be to pass a Constitutional Amendment to abolish Gay Marriage. This would be a much tougher thing to pass. Trump doesn't seem keen on signing such a thing, nor does seem like it'd pass through Congress, but would probably get ratified by the states if it came up.

Was talking about Austrian pres

My mistake

 

[RedHill]

Trump won by the rules that every candidate since Lincoln won on, he has more electoral college votes. Is that democratic? Depends on your point of view, should states vote's or individuals take precedance? In my view it should be the latter but nonetheless the situation it is what it is and infinitely more fair than any alternative. Who else is there, a career Republican hated by both sides? Fucking Hillary?

You have to take a long term view. America right now has a democracy, a flawed one, but pretty good nonetheless. If the electoral college betrayed the people, it wouldn't only be signing its own death warrant, but also that of the nation. Riots would happen, Democrats would be stigmatised for a generation, the constitution would be overhauled by the GOP and a far worse system be put in to satisfy their perverse agenda.

Which politician is better is ultimately subjective. It may seem clear the Dems are better, but remember, we can never prove it. Imagine in 20 years, another pivotal election, except this time the Dem candidate is Satan to half the country. What happens then when good is betrayed?

We must work through the system. Trust must be built. Dems need to give up this futile endeavour and work on showing they are the party of the people and not the elite.

This isn't helping.

THIS is the system, buckaroo. This is literally the EC doing what they do. Read up pal.

 

[numble]

The Electoral College is designed to do many things like prevent against fraud and maintain state sovereignty. If the Presidency was only determined by the popular vote, candidates would only go to California, Texas, Florida and New York, the most heavily populated areas in the country. They wouldn't go to Ohio or North Carolina or Arizona or Colorado or Wisconsin or Virginia etc. Swing states change from election to election, populated cities really don't, which means more states have to be visited during each election.

There is no evidence to support your assertions. In 2000 and 2004, the focus was entirely on Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, some of the largest states in the nation--it does not mean more states have to be visited. The fact that there are more swing states in 2008 and 2012 does not mean that is always the case. As Texas trends purple, future elections will be decided based on whoever wins Texas and Florida, the second and third largest states--that does not encourage more states to be visited.

In terms of only visiting very populated areas in a popular vote contest, it is not true as well.

1) We can look at other democracies--candidates and campaigns do not only go to populated areas, heck Brexit and the Italian referendum are 2 very recent examples of the rural areas beating out the populated areas--London and Rome did not decide the winner, in fact, the cities voted in a different way to how the election turned out.

2) We can look at the primary process, which is more akin to a popular vote. Candidates campaign in every state and do not simply camp out in the populated states. Giuliani lost a primary by trying to just focus on the large states.

3) We can look at the EC system today, with Maine and Nebraska. When the states open up their EC votes to allocate in a more proportional manner, the candidates go to these states because votes there matter.

 

[FyreWulff]

Yeah! Trump won by the rules of the Electoral College. We shouldn't use the Electoral College rules to prevent him from being president. We have to work through the system, by not using the system, so that we can win the next round using this system.

I still love how people that list all the reasons the EC exists but wants all those reasons to be rendered inert this time because reasons?

 

[KingBroly]

There is no evidence to support your assertions. In 2000 and 2004, the focus was entirely on Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, some of the largest states in the nation--it does not mean more states have to be visited. The fact that there are more swing states in 2008 and 2012 does not mean that is always the case. As Texas trends purple, future elections will be decided based on whoever wins Texas and Florida, the second and third largest states--that does not encourage more states to be visited.

In terms of only visiting very populated areas in a popular vote contest, it is not true as well.

1) We can look at other democracies--candidates and campaigns do not only go to populated areas, heck Brexit and the Italian referendum are 2 very recent examples of the rural areas beating out the populated areas--London and Rome did not decide the winner, in fact, the cities voted in a different way to how the election turned out.

2) We can look at the primary process, which is more akin to a popular vote. Candidates campaign in every state and do not simply camp out in the populated states. Giuliani lost a primary by trying to just focus on the large states.

3) We can look at the EC system today, with Maine and Nebraska. When the states open up their EC votes to allocate in a more proportional manner, the candidates go to these states because votes there matter.

Economics. Cost Analysis. If I have $100k to spend on a rally, and have to choose between a place where I can get the attention of 15-20 million people or 2-3 million people, I'm going to choose the former every time.

What you're talking about with 2 and 3 does take away power from the individual states, which is the purpose of why the electoral college was setup. Go look at the Federalist Papers. It was to maintain that the country didn't devolve into mob rule which a lot of people want but don't understand why it's a bad idea.

 

[numble]

Economics. Cost Analysis. If I have $100k to spend on a rally, and have to choose between a place where I can get the attention of 15-20 million people or 2-3 million people, I'm going to choose the former every time.

What you're talking about with 2 and 3 does take away power from the individual states, which is the purpose of why the electoral college was setup. Go look at the Federalist Papers. It was to maintain that the country didn't devolve into mob rule which a lot of people want but don't understand why it's a bad idea.

What places would you get the attention of 15-20 million people? Exaggerating does not help you.

Getting a rally in the Phoenix or Denver media market is still as valuable (or more valuable) as in Los Angeles, especially if there are statistically more undecided voters in Arizona or Colorado. Trump would be wasting his time if he spent time in Los Angeles and New York in a popular vote contest.

Again, look at how recent popular vote elections were won by the less populated areas. The takeaway is not to focus on the cities. Brexit: London voted No, the election outcome was the opposite. Italian referendum: Rome voted Yes, the election outcome was the opposite.

Where does 2 or 3 take away power from the individual states? 3 specifically is a situation that is more akin to what the Federalist Papers wanted--with each elector acting independently, not a winner-take-all system. Go look at the Federalist Papers and you will see that the purpose of the electoral college is not to institute a winner-take-all stateside popular vote.

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

 

[dapperbandit]

This is above some heads in here if

A. You think this is still about Clinton/Dems losing

B. The electoral college doing what it was designed to do is unconstitutional or is slap in the face of Democracy

C. Forcing Red states' electors to pick Trump is constitutional, undermining the design and purpose of electoral college

Like are these the closeted Trump voters/supporters tells?

Ah the old "if you don't believe in straw clutching you must be a Trump supporter in disguise" argument.

 

[Mr. X]

Ah the old "if you don't believe in straw clutching you must be a Trump supporter in disguise" argument.

What straw clutching is on display? I have 0 faith in the population that voted Trump to flip now. Saying electorals are looking to be obstructive by not falling in line or explaining away anyone as "sore loser" is childish.

 

[GutsOfThor]

I wish people would stop giving this fantasy attention. This isn't what we should be focusing on, we need to focus on ways to make Trump's presidency a living hell for him.

How the fuck do we do that?

Dems do not have the Congress or the Senate and their voters need to feel a tickle in their asshole about a candidate before they can even be bothered to get off their ass and vote.

 

[RPGCrazied]

Doesn't 30 need to flip before he doesn't get 270? I really would be hopeful if this happens, Congress wouldn't go with Trump. Sure, it'll be another Republican. But how about a sane one?

 

[gutter_trash]

20 is still not enough to dip below 270

 

[Formless]

Is it that in his scenario they'd vote for Clinton, or neither?

 

[RPGCrazied]

Is it that in his scenario they'd vote for Clinton, or neither?

It will most certainly be a Republican.

 

[Tigress]

I wish people would stop giving this fantasy attention. This isn't what we should be focusing on, we need to focus on ways to make Trump's presidency a living hell for him.

Why not both? This will only distract from your goal for a short while cause the deadline is soon for it to be relevant.

 

[RPGCrazied]

And what an early Christmas present this would be if the electors told Trump no. At this point I don't care what the Trump supporters would do, the country is much bigger than these people.

 

[Kilau]

Just like all those principled republicans that would NEVER support trump and yet here we are.

 

[Tigress]

It is imperative that Democracy is done, you may say the cost this time is too high, until the system is flipped and your candidate loses. Trump will likely be awful but if he is not elected then I really fear for America

Except the whole point of the electors is to stop a truly bad candidate if he some how gets elected. So the system is designed to be able to overrule the mob if the mob truly picks badly. So it's our system actually working as designed whether the electors vote trump or some one else. If we are going to say they have to vote trump then you are not allowing the system to work as designed.

If we insist they always have to vote how we elected them to, well, there is no point to them at all and we should have designed it so that the people's vote officially made him president and not the electors. Which is a valid arguement (that we should get rid of them so that the people always have the say). But it is not our system breaking down for them to elect some one else cause our system is designed soecifically to allow that as the people who created it foresaw people might elect some one truly horrible and there should be a way to stop it if they do.

If they elected hitler, would you be upset if the electors voted some one else or say they should just vote him? And I'm using hitter so we can argue over some one we all can agree would be a disaster (as history already showed he was).

 

[Angelus Errare]

nah worst possible thing would be the people taking over government with force.

Stealing the election would start a war.

Please you people won't do shit except riot. You're not going to shoot chips or military personnel, unless…all that talk about Blue Lives Matter and love our vets was a bunch of empty rhetoric

 

[theCalamity]

Is it that in his scenario they'd vote for Clinton, or neither?

Most likely neither. It could be the one who receives the third most electors. Currently, Trump has 306 electoral votes. Say all of Texas' electors (38) voted for Kasich. That would put Trump under 270, the number of votes required to have a majority. If that happens, then the vote for president would go to Republican controlled House of Reps. From there, they can only choose the three candidates that received the most electoral votes, which, in this scenario, would be Trump, Clinton, and Kasich.

 

[Amory]

There's no way this is happening, nor should it. I don't care if it's technically possible

 

[KingBroly]

What places would you get the attention of 15-20 million people? Exaggerating does not help you.

Getting a rally in the Phoenix or Denver media market is still as valuable (or more valuable) as in Los Angeles, especially if there are statistically more undecided voters in Arizona or Colorado. Trump would be wasting his time if he spent time in Los Angeles and New York in a popular vote contest.

Again, look at how recent popular vote elections were won by the less populated areas. The takeaway is not to focus on the cities. Brexit: London voted No, the election outcome was the opposite. Italian referendum: Rome voted Yes, the election outcome was the opposite.

Where does 2 or 3 take away power from the individual states? 3 specifically is a situation that is more akin to what the Federalist Papers wanted--with each elector acting independently, not a winner-take-all system. Go look at the Federalist Papers and you will see that the purpose of the electoral college is not to institute a winner-take-all stateside popular vote.

The analogy is a clear generalization, and you're missing the overall point. If you go by the popular vote, and Hamilton outlined this, the will of the rural man will be shunned and forgotten.

 

[Mr Cola]

If people genuinely, genuinely believed he was a fascist wouldnt we see much more protest than we currently do?