Electoral College - Let's Set The Record Straight

[Spare_change]

1) There is no constitutional requirement that electors appointed to the Electoral College vote in accordance with the popular vote in their home state.

2) This has led to the "faithless elector" scheme by the liberals to try to subvert a legal and fair election.

3) There are, however, several state laws that REQUIRE the elector to vote in accordance with the popular vote. Specifically:

ALABAMA – Party Pledge / State Law – § 17-19-2
ALASKA – Party Pledge / State Law – § 15.30.040; 15.30.070
CALIFORNIA – State Law – Elections Code § 6906
COLORADO – State Law – § 1-4-304
CONNECTICUT – State Law – § 9-175
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA – DC Pledge / DC Law – § 1-1001.08(g)
FLORIDA – Party Pledge / State Law – § 103.021(1)
HAWAII – State Law – §§ 14-26 to 14-28
MAINE – State Law – § 805
MARYLAND – State Law – § 8-505
MASSACHUSETTS – Party Pledge / State Law – Ch. 53, § 8, Supp.
MICHIGAN – State Law – §168.47 (Violation cancels vote and Elector is replaced.)
MISSISSIPPI – Party Pledge / State Law – §23-15-785(3)
MONTANA – State Law – § 13-25-304
NEBRASKA – State Law – § 32-714
NEW MEXICO – State Law – § 1-15-5 to 1-15-9 (Violation is a fourth degree felony.)
NORTH CAROLINA – State Law – § 163-212 (Violation cancels vote; elector is replaced and is subject to $500 fine.)
OHIO – State Law – § 3505.40
OKLAHOMA – State Pledge / State Law – 26, §§ 10-102; 10-109 (Violation of oath is a misdemeanor, carrying a fine of up to $1000.)
OREGON – State Pledge / State Law – § 248.355
SOUTH CAROLINA – State Pledge / State Law – § 7-19-80 (Replacement and criminal sanctions for violation.)
VERMONT – State Law – title 17, § 2732
* VIRGINIA – State Law – § 24.1-162 (Virginia statute may be advisory – “Shall be expected” to vote for nominees.)
WASHINGTON – Party Pledge / State Law – §§ 29.71.020, 29.71.040, Supp. ($1000 fine.)
WISCONSIN – State Law – § 7.75
WYOMING – State Law – §§ 22-19-106; 22-19-108

4) In most states, the makeup of the electors is determined by the winning candidate. I think we can feel confident that no candidate is going to appoint anything but faithful supporters to the electorate.

5) In the history of the United States, there have been 175 'faithless' electors. What are the odds?

All this talk is nonsense. Put it to bed, kill it, bury it, whatever --- but don't waste your time on it. It is a flight of ignorance to think otherwise.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Trump is the President.

End of story.

 

[Spare_change]

Trump is the President.

End of story.

Thank you.

 

[Boss]

Also FALSE are the annoying claims that the EC was established because:

1) We traveled by horse and buggy back then.
2) We couldn't count all the rural votes.
3) So the elite could control the people from the top.

 

[the_human_being]

Legally, I believe any attempt to change the results now would go to the Supreme Court and be struck down.
Both Trump and Hillary were fully aware of the Electorial College's part in the election. Indeed, Hillary went through this process when Bill was twice elected and also when she ran against Obama. It's not as though she was unaware of the electorial process.

The Electorial College has been in play for many many years and has weathered many many elections. I do not see the Supreme Court allowing the system to be changed simply because Hillary lost the Electorial College. I do not think the American people would sit by and see the results of the election changed in order to appease the losing candidate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Quit sweating, being. Trump is president elect and will be president.

 

[Boss]

Legally, I believe any attempt to change the results now would go to the Supreme Court and be struck down.
Both Trump and Hillary were fully aware of the Electorial College's part in the election. Indeed, Hillary went through this process when Bill was twice elected and also when she ran against Obama. It's not as though she was unaware of the electorial process.

The Electorial College has been in play for many many years and has weathered many many elections. I do not see the Supreme Court allowing the system to be changed simply because Hillary lost the Electorial College. I do not think the American people would sit by and see the results of the election changed in order to appease the losing candidate.

There is no plausible case for the SCOTUS to hear. The system can't be changed without a constitutional amendment. You'll never ratify an amendment for states to essentially abandon representation of their own people. It wouldn't retroactively apply to this election even if you could. The SCOTUS case in 2000 was over certification of the votes.

What these morons are trying to do with their petitions to the EC is to get the electors to change their votes in order to prevent Trump from winning. Of this won't work, but I am actually GLAD they've done this... it demonstrates for everyone just exactly how important integrity is to these folks.... if they have to cheat to win or undermine the process, they're okay with that. Whatever it takes... as long as their objective gets reached. Is that the sort of people you want to give power to?

 

[Rustic]

Also FALSE are the annoying claims that the EC was established because:

1) We traveled by horse and buggy back then.
2) We couldn't count all the rural votes.
3) So the elite could control the people from the top.

 

[occupied]

Legally, I believe any attempt to change the results now would go to the Supreme Court and be struck down.
Both Trump and Hillary were fully aware of the Electorial College's part in the election. Indeed, Hillary went through this process when Bill was twice elected and also when she ran against Obama. It's not as though she was unaware of the electorial process.

The Electorial College has been in play for many many years and has weathered many many elections. I do not see the Supreme Court allowing the system to be changed simply because Hillary lost the Electorial College. I do not think the American people would sit by and see the results of the election changed in order to appease the losing candidate.

There is no plausible case for the SCOTUS to hear. The system can't be changed without a constitutional amendment. You'll never ratify an amendment for states to essentially abandon representation of their own people. It wouldn't retroactively apply to this election even if you could. The SCOTUS case in 2000 was over certification of the votes.

What these morons are trying to do with their petitions to the EC is to get the electors to change their votes in order to prevent Trump from winning. Of this won't work, but I am actually GLAD they've done this... it demonstrates for everyone just exactly how important integrity is to these folks.... if they have to cheat to win or undermine the process, they're okay with that. Whatever it takes... as long as their objective gets reached. Is that the sort of people you want to give power to?

The movement to go to the popular vote is nothing new. There is something so terribly undemocratic about the process, especially when it goes wrong, that offends the sensibilities of those who feel the one with the most votes should win. Not saying they should not cast their electoral votes as directed but having never had your candidate win the most votes and yet lose you might not understand the frustration.

 

[Spare_change]

Legally, I believe any attempt to change the results now would go to the Supreme Court and be struck down.
Both Trump and Hillary were fully aware of the Electorial College's part in the election. Indeed, Hillary went through this process when Bill was twice elected and also when she ran against Obama. It's not as though she was unaware of the electorial process.

The Electorial College has been in play for many many years and has weathered many many elections. I do not see the Supreme Court allowing the system to be changed simply because Hillary lost the Electorial College. I do not think the American people would sit by and see the results of the election changed in order to appease the losing candidate.

There is no plausible case for the SCOTUS to hear. The system can't be changed without a constitutional amendment. You'll never ratify an amendment for states to essentially abandon representation of their own people. It wouldn't retroactively apply to this election even if you could. The SCOTUS case in 2000 was over certification of the votes.

What these morons are trying to do with their petitions to the EC is to get the electors to change their votes in order to prevent Trump from winning. Of this won't work, but I am actually GLAD they've done this... it demonstrates for everyone just exactly how important integrity is to these folks.... if they have to cheat to win or undermine the process, they're okay with that. Whatever it takes... as long as their objective gets reached. Is that the sort of people you want to give power to?

The movement to go to the popular vote is nothing new. There is something so terribly undemocratic about the process, especially when it goes wrong, that offends the sensibilities of those who feel the one with the most votes should win. Not saying they should not cast their electoral votes as directed but having never had your candidate win the most votes and yet lose you might not understand the frustration.

No, as a matter of fact, I don't understand the frustration.

But, then, I bothered to educate myself on the process, and looked at the rationale for it. The process is sane, logical, and frankly, quite inspired.

Ignorance is not an excuse, but it damn sure serves as a reason around here.

 

[Boss]

The movement to go to the popular vote is nothing new. There is something so terribly undemocratic about the process, especially when it goes wrong, that offends the sensibilities of those who feel the one with the most votes should win. Not saying they should not cast their electoral votes as directed but having never had your candidate win the most votes and yet lose you might not understand the frustration.

These "sensibilities" are based on an ignorant view that we should elect presidents by popular vote. Our framers could have much more easily have set things up that way but they didn't. It's part of the difference between a republic and a democracy.

One of the major drawbacks in a pure democracy is what you would have if we did this election by popular vote. This is how that works: MY Gang is bigger than YOUR Gang. So we're going to hog the political power and you're to sit there and shut the fuck up while we run everything. If your Gang ever becomes bigger, then you can run things.

In a Republic, however, it doesn't really matter which Gang you're in, your voice always retains some power. Imagine how terrible the next four years would be if there were no filibuster or supermajority requirements for anything.... The Republicans control all the power and Democrat voices mean absolutely nothing. So do you REALLY prefer this, because that would be democracy.

I'm not sure what the final popular vote is going to be. They've still not counted every vote and this could ironically be a case where every single vote counted. Statistically, the popular vote is tied. She may end up with slightly more votes but the number of popular votes is totally meaningless. We won't even mention that the west coast polls were open for several hours after east coast results were announced. We have no idea how many Democrats went out and basically "padded" her numbers in California, Washington and Oregon.