More Proof That LIbEralism is a Mental Disease: Electors planning to undermine Electoral College

Discussion in 'Election Forums' started by Bob Blaylock, Nov 23, 2016.

  1. Bob Blaylock
    Online

    Bob Blaylock Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2015
    Messages:
    4,113
    Thanks Received:
    972
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    38°29′ North 121°26′ West
    Ratings:
    +4,673
    Democratic presidential electors revolt against Trump

    At least a half-dozen Democratic electors have signed onto an attempt to block Donald Trump from winning an Electoral College majority, an effort designed not only to deny Trump the presidency but also to undermine the legitimacy of the institution.

    The presidential electors, mostly former Bernie Sanders supporters who hail from Washington state and Colorado, are now lobbying their Republican counterparts in other states to reject their oaths — and in some cases, state law — to vote against Trump when the Electoral College meets on Dec. 19.

    Even the most optimistic among the Democratic electors acknowledges they're unlikely to persuade the necessary 37 Republican electors to reject Trump — the number they'd likely need to deny him the presidency and send the final decision to the House of Representatives. And even if they do, the Republican-run House might simply elect Trump anyway.
    ·
    ·
    ·​

    And, according to another article

    A number of Democratic Electoral College electors are planning to use their votes to undermine the election process in opposition to President-elect Donald Trump, Politico is reporting.
    ·
    ·
    ·​
    They are also contemplating whether to cast their votes for someone other than Hillary Clinton, like Mitt Romney or Gov. John Kasich (R-Ohio).


    All that these fools have any chance of accomplishing is to make Mr. Trump's victory even more impressive, and to show the nation what sort of fools they are. They may deprive Mrs. Clinton of the votes that they had pledged to her, but I would have to say that their chances are pretty close to zero of persuading even as much as one of Mr. Trump's pledged delegates to turn against him.
     
  2. TheOldSchool
    Offline

    TheOldSchool Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    54,310
    Thanks Received:
    9,051
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    last stop for sanity before reaching the south
    Ratings:
    +35,913
    Hillary currently has over 2 million more votes than Trump. Unless Trump shows some amount of respect to the popular vote, then the electoral college is a failure, and must be replaced.

    I think after the disastrous Dubya years, and 4 years of a petulant reality TV star failing the nation, America will be ready to reconsider the electoral college.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. emilynghiem
    Online

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    17,569
    Thanks Received:
    2,285
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +5,622
    Dear Bob Blaylock
    The Electors have every right to vote their conscience.
    But if they want to carry on a hateful campaign to harass and accuse other people for voting theirs,
    that just makes THEM look bad. Why not respect everyone's rights to vote equally?

    Dear TheOldSchool
    A. Why not require candidates to win BOTH the popular AND the electoral vote?
    Wouldn't that satisfy BOTH requirements, and not put one over the other?
    Require winners to represent BOTH the majority of voters AND the majority of states proportionally.

    B. Why not improve the system by having each state
    assign the Electoral votes PER DISTRICT to the majority winner in EACH?

    So candidates like Clinton COULD gain votes from states where the split was almost 50/50.

    Wouldn't that solve the problem, too?
    And also satisfy people who WANT the votes distributed and not just
    concentrated in denser populated urban areas.

    How is that fair to voters who live spread out working farms across the Midwest?

    Again, if you are EQUALLY worried about those voters 'weighing more' than
    high concentrated urban voters, then THAT'S the SAME reason that the
    Electoral College supporters don't want to be outweighed either!!!

    BOTH want to make sure their votes are counted fairly.

    so why not require BOTH popular AND electoral majority to win?
    Wouldn't that satisfy both requirements so nobody feels cheated by the other approach?
     
  4. TheOldSchool
    Offline

    TheOldSchool Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    54,310
    Thanks Received:
    9,051
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    last stop for sanity before reaching the south
    Ratings:
    +35,913
    You need to seriously consider therapy.
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. Bob Blaylock
    Online

    Bob Blaylock Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2015
    Messages:
    4,113
    Thanks Received:
    972
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    38°29′ North 121°26′ West
    Ratings:
    +4,673
    What you seem to be calling for is two different contests, with two different sets of rules, and a requirement that a candidate must win both in order to be elected. So what do we do, then, when each set of rules produces a different result?

    In very close races, I don't believe that it is feasible to count the popular vote with enough accuracy to assure that the correct result was obtained. THink back to the 2000 election, when it came down to one state, and they kept counting the votes over and over again, and arguing about “hanging chads” and “dimpled chads” and all other manners in which a ballot might not have been properly punched, and how to try to discern what a voter intended from an imperfect ballot. Now, try to imagine this on the national scale, rather than in just one state. If we were to think we really needed to know the national popular vote result from 2000, we'd still be counting and recounting, and we'd still not know for sure. Al Gore is widely-believed to have won the popular vote, even though he ultimately lost the electoral vote, but for all intents and purposes, the popular vote has to be considered a tie, as the margin is well within any rational margin of error. One advantage of the electoral system that we use is that it often has the result of turning what would otherwise have been a tie into a meaningful, reliable result.


    The Constitution leaves it to each state to determine how it will choose its electors. It doesn't even have to be by an election of the people. I believe there are one or two states that choose them by congressional district rather than by state, but nearly all states have evolved into a “winner takes all” method based on the popular vote of the entire state.

    Our national government was not set up to reflect a direct popular vote. The Connecticut Compromise established a balance between the power of the individual people, and the power of the states. That's why our Congress consists of two houses, the House of Representatives, which represents the people, and the Senate, which represents the states. There are plenty of arguments to be made for and against this balance, and those arguments certainly were made back when the structure of our government was being set up, and this is what was ultimately decided. The distribution of the Electoral College reflects this same balance, giving each state two electors, to represent each state equally as in the Senate, plus a number of additional electors proportional to its population, to represent the people, as in the House of Representatives.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. Derelict_Drvr
    Offline

    Derelict_Drvr Silver Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    1,113
    Thanks Received:
    197
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Ratings:
    +1,032

    Finally!!!! Reading someone who knows what the hell they're talking about is a breath of fresh air!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. emilynghiem
    Online

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    17,569
    Thanks Received:
    2,285
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +5,622
    1. We can make the margin wide enough where it has to be a clear super majority, like 2/3 or 3/4
    Not just 51% that is easily manipulated

    If we went back to a system where the executive offices could be held by representatives from different parties we could get a super majority

    2. By counting all votes toward representation by party, there would be greater participation. Each party would be responsible for its own voting members so any fraud would affect their own party.

    3. The main thing that I would push to correct is allowing representation by party. Taking turns only letting one party dominate govt. is as problematic as electing religious leaders of one denomination to have govt representation while denying the same to other groups. The parties have become like warring political religions.

    So why not let them govern their own memberships and keep their beliefs out of govt Except where the public Agrees on policies.

    If we only run and elect leaders who can represent and work with people and beliefs of ALL parties, then we would see consensus on policies written by collaboration and mutual agreement not competition and forced compromise.

    So we could have super majorities decide elections and pass laws by changing how we use political parties for representation and inclusion, not competing to outbully and overrule each other leaving half the nation out of the process each time.
    pvsi
     
  8. LuckyDuck
    Offline

    LuckyDuck Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,476
    Thanks Received:
    205
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,141
    Replace the Electoral College and only the large cities will actually have a voice in who is elected. America's small towns and rural areas will no longer have a viable vote as they would be unable to compete with the large cities, which tend to be democratic. Once you have only one party candidates in power, you lose freedom; thus begins the quick slide to Marxism and history and present day shows how evil Marxism is.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. TheOldSchool
    Offline

    TheOldSchool Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    54,310
    Thanks Received:
    9,051
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    last stop for sanity before reaching the south
    Ratings:
    +35,913
    We have the Senate to represent each state equally and the House of Representatives for small and big towns to have a voice. Once you have only one party in power, put there by a scared and xenophobic minority desperate to surrender their freedoms, you lose freedom; thus begins the quick slide to Fascism and history and present day shows how evil Fascism is.
     
  10. LuckyDuck
    Offline

    LuckyDuck Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,476
    Thanks Received:
    205
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,141
    The office of president is determined nationally; eliminate the Electoral College and again, only the biggest cities decide the president and he/she has the power to suspend the Constitution in an emergency.
     

Share This Page