Electoral College: Make Hillary Clinton President on December 19

[Zoom-boing]

So if Clinton had won you would had been okay the electoral college voting for trump instead?

Wasn't it just a few weeks ago they were writhing in the streets over Trump "supposedly" saying he wouldn't support the outcome of the elections? Oh.... they were fucking having conniptions over that! The NERVE of the man to besmirch the peaceful transition of power that way! Many of their sycophants said that was IT for Trump... that doomed his chances right there!

Isn't it funny how quick they forgot all that?

Just imagine if you fought for Trump......your thoughts ring hollow......

Pipe down. I didn't support Trump and am sitting here waiting to see what he does. You want a big tent? Stop bashing people who don't say 'how high' when you demand we 'jump'. smh

We got it from here....thanks.....

Ridiculing and acting smug isn't going to cut it. We had 8 years of that under obutthead. That's. Done.

Don't know about others but I am willing to give Trump a chance. My pov? Talk is cheap, it's what you do that counts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How great would that be if the Right's beloved electoral college came back to bite them in the ass like that.

 

[Care4all]

Pissed off about the electoral college? How about we give each county one vote. I'm pretty sure the left would not be for that.

No Missouri_Mike
Where do you get that I am not RELIEVED that Trump won because of the Electoral System this time?

If a candidate has to win BOTH votes that INCLUDES the Electoral College, it doesn't reject it at ALL!!!

Are you trying to clarify that if there is a runoff, we should use the same system again?
And have ALL the people vote for just those two candidates,
and then use the Electoral system again for the runoff?

Okay, SURE! Whatever it takes to ensure the Winner wins
BOTH the Popular and Electoral Vote so we don't have this nonsense afterward.

Silly kids. Guess they don't teach civics in school these days. The only nonsense is being created by snowflakes pissed they didn't get their way. I'll send you a participation trophy.

Dear JBond
Don't you think it makes sense, that if you take the same logic of Electoral Votes across the nation
so more populous areas don't dictate for the less populous,
and Apply that to States so more populous counties don't dictate for the entire State,
that would be even more fair?
The States would still get their Electoral Votes by population,
but it could be further split by population by the same system!

but why is it fair to limit the worth of 1 man's vote who just happens to live in a city, and magnify 1 man's vote who lives in the suburbs or country? it makes no sense?

Dear Care4all: Imagine taking that same situation you described but multiplying by the population of America, then concentrating all the inflated votes in 5-7 cities of NYC or CA FL IL and TX. And leaving all the people with deflated votes everywhere else. That's even worse. Those 5 hotspot cities would not only get the campaign dollars, but all year round the parties and officials would cater to those populations to buy their favor. The media the businesses would flock and focus there.

So that's even worse. It's the same problem but multiplied by millions in the largest key cities vs the rest of the nation.

This way isn't perfect either as the candidates still cater to swing states with more votes. But it's more spread out over the nation and not just in the top 5-10 big cities or counties. Can you imagine what would happen if they were all in 2-3 states and those voters had their votes multiplied by thousands compared with others in 48 states competing to be heard next to those 2 states that were the key to winning?

Those blocs of votes are going to occur, but it's better to have them broken up into smaller ones spread out per state vs. a few really yuuuuge ones that dominate the whole nation.

Emily,

For a presidential election, it should be one national vote, where all votes from all states get added together for the popular vote total....

This means each candidate will have votes from each state....So even in a state with a large city populous the candidate does not get zero votes that loses....the loser in that State would still get votes added to their vote count... with the electoral college, the winner takes them all.....which to me, this advantages the city dwellers to one candidate only.... even though 30% to 40% of the votes cast went to the loser.

If we eliminated the EC....the loser would carry those losing votes, and the winner would carry the winning votes in each state and they would be added in a rolling total for a grand total for the Nation.....

With NOT carrying one single big city/big populous state electoral vote in his count because of winner take all, Trump has nearly won the popular vote, and with a little tweaking on where to campaign if it were a popular vote, would still have beaten Hillary Clinton....because he still got the votes in the populated state added to his vote count, even if he lost the overall state.

The way we have winner take all, limits the loser`s electoral count....

I am on my Kindle trying to type this which is difficult, let me go to my laptop.....be right back.


EDIT

My lap top is going through a Windows Update and I can't get on it yet....sigh....need a few more minutes.

----------------------------------------------------------

Why is it that all presidents elected, with the exception of two, not counting al gore which was a complete anomaly in the Florida recount, and Trump, have won the popular vote and the electoral vote.... HOW COULD THAT BE? if the electoral college is suppose to prevent the winner of the popular vote from winning the electoral college vote?

So with the couple of exceptions, the popular vote would have given us all, the SAME OUTCOME on the winner?

So exactly how is the electoral college actually helping to prevent this from happening?

 

[eflatminor]

Dear JBond
Don't you think it makes sense, that if you take the same logic of Electoral Votes across the nation
so more populous areas don't dictate for the less populous,
and Apply that to States so more populous counties don't dictate for the entire State,
that would be even more fair?
The States would still get their Electoral Votes by population,
but it could be further split by population by the same system!

but why is it fair to limit the worth of 1 man's vote who just happens to live in a city, and magnify 1 man's vote who lives in the suburbs or country? it makes no sense?

It's called Federalism. States have power, regardless of their size or population density.

And we have that taken care of with our Senators, a state with 39 million has 2 senators and a state with 530,000 has 2 senators.....but our President should be the vote of the populous.

The concept works for Senators, why should it not for the Presidential vote?

And really, we should have NY, LA and Chicago elect every President from now on?

Yea, pass.

the president represents everyone.... and Donald trump got nearly the same votes as Hillary without a single major city, so there is plenty of votes in the nation NOT from a major city....

Again, pass.

 

[Care4all]

Why is it that all presidents elected, with the exception of two, not counting al gore which was a complete anomaly in the Florida recount, and Trump, have won the popular vote and the electoral vote.... HOW COULD THAT BE? if the electoral college is suppose to prevent the winner of the popular vote from winning the electoral college vote?

So with the couple of exceptions, the popular vote would have given us all, the SAME OUTCOME on the winner?

So exactly how is the electoral college actually helping to prevent this from happening?

 

[Norman]

The anti-democratic regressives self identifying themselves and their hateful ideology once more.

 

[Boss]

If we eliminated the EC....the loser would carry those losing votes, and the winner would carry the winning votes in each state and they would be added in a rolling total for a grand total for the Nation.....

I guess you're just going to ignore me but I'm persistent. Okay, let's say Care4all is running for president... you have to make the most of your campaign stops... how much time would you devote to a state with 200k votes as opposed to a state with 13 million votes? Would you take the time to visit Kansas or Arizona, or would you more than likely go to LA, NYC, Chicago, Miami?

By changing it to popular vote, you completely change the strategy of a national presidential campaign. That's why we don't do anything through national elections. All that would EVER matter in terms of policy would be things that would appeal to big city dwellers because that's where the votes are. So large agricultural states would get left out in the cold while the big cities thrived and got all the goodies.

The way we do it... all the states matter because they are all tied to an electoral vote that counts and means something. I realize you're upset that your candidate didn't win the election but that's NEVER a good reason to change a system we've had for 247 years... which WOULD require a Constitutional Amendment. How about growing the fuck up?

 

[Uncensored2008]

"On December 19, the Electors of the Electoral College will cast their ballots. If they all vote the way their states voted, Donald Trump will win. However, they can vote for Hillary Clinton if they choose. Even in states where that is not allowed, their vote would still be counted, they would simply pay a small fine - which we can be sure Clinton supporters will be glad to pay!

We are calling on the Electors to ignore their states' votes and cast their ballots for Secretary Clinton."

Electoral College Electors: Electoral College Make Hillary Clinton President on December 19

More hypocrisy.

They won't, but if they actually did, then the rule of law and free elections are over. Since there would be no law, each and every elector would be dead - it would take moments to hack names and locations.

But they're not dumb enough to try and steal our government like that. If they did though, they will pay with their lives. This is just speculation into a nation where the rule of law and free elections ended.

 

[Boss]

Why is it that all presidents elected, with the exception of two, not counting al gore which was a complete anomaly in the Florida recount, and Trump, have won the popular vote and the electoral vote.... HOW COULD THAT BE? if the electoral college is suppose to prevent the winner of the popular vote from winning the electoral college vote?

So with the couple of exceptions, the popular vote would have given us all, the SAME OUTCOME on the winner?

So exactly how is the electoral college actually helping to prevent this from happening?

Because it is a rare anomaly that happens sometimes. If you'll notice, it's never by very much... it's always very close. It's not like someone is going to get MILLIONS more votes and still lose the EC. The "reason" it happens is because we can't predict voter turnout. Californians who went heavy for Hillary could have seen the results back east and decided to flock to the polls so they could boost her popular vote count... that's not an impossibility is it? In my state, a lot of people didn't bother to vote because Trump was going to win no matter what.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Not all city dwellers live in a harlem you know? Most who live in cities like New York or Boston are high wage tax payers, why should a state squash the votes of city dwellers just because they live in a city, for goodness sake??? the poor don't vote...they are the least likely to vote, but the Doctors and lawyers and Indian Chiefs and wall streeters do vote....WHY, since they pay the most in taxes, should their vote count less than the small town farmer 50 miles away? WHY? that is NOT FAIR.

Who squashed your vote, Comrade?

This REPUBLIC is a collection of 50 independent states. Each STATE elects who they want to be president. New York voters elect who New York wants. New York is NOT the entire nation, it is just one state. The larger population is represented by a larger number of electors.

You Communists oppose minority rights and representation, seeking to rule by a deluded urban majority.

You lost the election, grow up and accept it, stop trying to undermine the results with attacks on the Constitution. I get it that you lost at the ballot box so now you want civil war, but grow up.

 

[Grizz]

yes, they can do it, and they are SUPPOSE to do it....that's what the constitution says and that's how hamilton and madison created electors to be.... make their own decision on who to vote for..... not even coordinating with other electors in their State, but an informed, individual, decision....not by party, not by popular vote but they alone were to make their own individual decision.

Then politics got involved, and electors figured out they could have more power if they colluded together on who to pick as their candidate...and it's been all downhill since then...

ONE MAN, ONE VOTE....every elected position in the USA is picked that way....governors, senators, congressmen, legislators, county clerk, sheriff, school board members etc....

except our President.... it's bull crud.

IF TRUMP had won the popular vote but Hillary won the electoral vote, Trump would be tweeting from the rafters, the election was rigged, the system is rigged....

when wisonsin gets 3 electors for 500k citizens, and california with 39 million citizens gets 55, then the citizens in their state's vote does not count equally with a citizen in Wisconsin....that's simply not right, not fair, not just. one man, one vote against another man's vote, should be equal

if calif had the same proportion of electors as wisconsin citizens get, california would have 195 electors, not the 55....

it's stupid and highly unfair.

...and there you have it, the quintessential view of the Left. "We want our way and we will hold our collective breaths until we get it."

All that shit about "accepting" the results was just that, shit. You lost, deal with it. Stop acting like a spoiled little girl and butch up sally, act like an adult.

 

[Grizz]

the electoral college was not created by our founders to give smaller unpopulated states more power!!!!!! THAT'S simply not true!

all the states had about the same populations and electors when they were created.

You get to prove this, you can't and you won't even try but until you do you're just one more hysterical child.

 

[Care4all]

If we eliminated the EC....the loser would carry those losing votes, and the winner would carry the winning votes in each state and they would be added in a rolling total for a grand total for the Nation.....

I guess you're just going to ignore me but I'm persistent. Okay, let's say Care4all is running for president... you have to make the most of your campaign stops... how much time would you devote to a state with 200k votes as opposed to a state with 13 million votes? Would you take the time to visit Kansas or Arizona, or would you more than likely go to LA, NYC, Chicago, Miami?

By changing it to popular vote, you completely change the strategy of a national presidential campaign. That's why we don't do anything through national elections. All that would EVER matter in terms of policy would be things that would appeal to big city dwellers because that's where the votes are. So large agricultural states would get left out in the cold while the big cities thrived and got all the goodies.

The way we do it... all the states matter because they are all tied to an electoral vote that counts and means something. I realize you're that your candidate didn't win the election but that's NEVER a good reason to change a system we've had for 247 years... which WOULD require a Constitutional Amendment. How about growing the fuck up?

First, we are not in the day and age of horse and carriage....it is not hard to visit low populated states and you would only need one rally to get most voters in the State, whereas in a city you may need 5 rallies to cover everyone....in all 5 boroughs like New York....the other candidate could vist 5 states with 5 rallies while the populous city candidate would need to make 5 visits to that state's largest city...and even then would only get 70% of the populous to vote for them while the other candidate without spending a dime, would get 30% to 40% of that city's vote added to his total vote count....

And does having 3 electoral votes REALLY bring a candidate to the smaller state???? I don't see how that draws them there to rally as you claim the EC vote would?

 

[Grizz]

the electoral college was not created by our founders to give smaller unpopulated states more power!!!!!! THAT'S simply not true!

all the states had about the same populations and electors when they were created.

Not more power, a voice.

The Founders were wise men. They knew the country would flourish and the populations would grow.

there was no popular vote at the time of our founding fathers..... hamilton and madison were turning in their graves before they even died, watching what states ended up doing with their electors....the corruption and collusion among electors started while they were still alive and they were not pleased!!!

"Origins of the Electoral College
The Constitutional Convention considered several possible methods of selecting a president.

One idea was to have the Congress choose the president. This idea was rejected, however, because some felt that making such a choice would be too divisive an issue and leave too many hard feelings in the Congress. Others felt that such a procedure would invite unseemly political bargaining, corruption, and perhaps even interference from foreign powers. Still others felt that such an arrangement would upset the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

A second idea was to have the State legislatures select the president. This idea, too, was rejected out of fears that a president so beholden to the State legislatures might permit them to erode federal authority and thus undermine the whole idea of a federation.

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones."

The Electoral College - Origin and History

Just say thank you.

 

[Care4all]

yes, they can do it, and they are SUPPOSE to do it....that's what the constitution says and that's how hamilton and madison created electors to be.... make their own decision on who to vote for..... not even coordinating with other electors in their State, but an informed, individual, decision....not by party, not by popular vote but they alone were to make their own individual decision.

Then politics got involved, and electors figured out they could have more power if they colluded together on who to pick as their candidate...and it's been all downhill since then...

ONE MAN, ONE VOTE....every elected position in the USA is picked that way....governors, senators, congressmen, legislators, county clerk, sheriff, school board members etc....

except our President.... it's bull crud.

IF TRUMP had won the popular vote but Hillary won the electoral vote, Trump would be tweeting from the rafters, the election was rigged, the system is rigged....

when wisonsin gets 3 electors for 500k citizens, and california with 39 million citizens gets 55, then the citizens in their state's vote does not count equally with a citizen in Wisconsin....that's simply not right, not fair, not just. one man, one vote against another man's vote, should be equal

if calif had the same proportion of electors as wisconsin citizens get, california would have 195 electors, not the 55....

it's stupid and highly unfair.

...and there you have it, the quintessential view of the Left. "We want our way and we will hold our collective breaths until we get it."

All that shit about "accepting" the results was just that, shit. You lost, deal with it. Stop acting like a spoiled little girl and butch up sally, act like an adult.

IDIOT!

I am not talking about changing things for this election, and never have been....

this is an intellectual debate on the way things work and how to improve it, if possible.

Now go back to your play dough.

 

[Grizz]

How great would that be if the Right's beloved electoral college came back to bite them in the ass like that.

Give it time, it will.

 

[Grizz]

yes, they can do it, and they are SUPPOSE to do it....that's what the constitution says and that's how hamilton and madison created electors to be.... make their own decision on who to vote for..... not even coordinating with other electors in their State, but an informed, individual, decision....not by party, not by popular vote but they alone were to make their own individual decision.

Then politics got involved, and electors figured out they could have more power if they colluded together on who to pick as their candidate...and it's been all downhill since then...

ONE MAN, ONE VOTE....every elected position in the USA is picked that way....governors, senators, congressmen, legislators, county clerk, sheriff, school board members etc....

except our President.... it's bull crud.

IF TRUMP had won the popular vote but Hillary won the electoral vote, Trump would be tweeting from the rafters, the election was rigged, the system is rigged....

when wisonsin gets 3 electors for 500k citizens, and california with 39 million citizens gets 55, then the citizens in their state's vote does not count equally with a citizen in Wisconsin....that's simply not right, not fair, not just. one man, one vote against another man's vote, should be equal

if calif had the same proportion of electors as wisconsin citizens get, california would have 195 electors, not the 55....

it's stupid and highly unfair.

...and there you have it, the quintessential view of the Left. "We want our way and we will hold our collective breaths until we get it."

All that shit about "accepting" the results was just that, shit. You lost, deal with it. Stop acting like a spoiled little girl and butch up sally, act like an adult.

IDIOT!

I am not talking about changing things for this election, and never have been....

this is an intellectual debate on the way things work and how to improve it, if possible.

Now go back to your play dough.

"Origins of the Electoral College
The Constitutional Convention considered several possible methods of selecting a president.

One idea was to have the Congress choose the president. This idea was rejected, however, because some felt that making such a choice would be too divisive an issue and leave too many hard feelings in the Congress. Others felt that such a procedure would invite unseemly political bargaining, corruption, and perhaps even interference from foreign powers. Still others felt that such an arrangement would upset the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

A second idea was to have the State legislatures select the president. This idea, too, was rejected out of fears that a president so beholden to the State legislatures might permit them to erode federal authority and thus undermine the whole idea of a federation.

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones."

The Electoral College - Origin and History

Just say thank you.

 

[Care4all]

the electoral college was not created by our founders to give smaller unpopulated states more power!!!!!! THAT'S simply not true!

all the states had about the same populations and electors when they were created.

Not more power, a voice.

The Founders were wise men. They knew the country would flourish and the populations would grow.

there was no popular vote at the time of our founding fathers..... hamilton and madison were turning in their graves before they even died, watching what states ended up doing with their electors....the corruption and collusion among electors started while they were still alive and they were not pleased!!!

"Origins of the Electoral College
The Constitutional Convention considered several possible methods of selecting a president.

One idea was to have the Congress choose the president. This idea was rejected, however, because some felt that making such a choice would be too divisive an issue and leave too many hard feelings in the Congress. Others felt that such a procedure would invite unseemly political bargaining, corruption, and perhaps even interference from foreign powers. Still others felt that such an arrangement would upset the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

A second idea was to have the State legislatures select the president. This idea, too, was rejected out of fears that a president so beholden to the State legislatures might permit them to erode federal authority and thus undermine the whole idea of a federation.

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones."

The Electoral College - Origin and History

Just say thank you.

Hello? We are not in the age or horse and buggy, nor in the age where we only know a candidate that could reach us with that horse and carriage in our regions or by our local newspaper coverage....there was no tv, there was no talk radio, there were no cars there were no planes and jets, there was no internet, nothing...

We have 24/7 cable news networks, we have the internet, we have national newspapers and the ability to read newspapers from every region in the nation, we have smartphones....we have planes trains and automobiles,we had none of that at the time of our founders.

those concerns by our founders, were concerns for THEIR TIME, and do not reflect the world we live in today with all the media outlets and means of transportation

 

[Grizz]

The facts are these.

You don't like the EC.
You don't like the 12th Amendment.

Those however are not the real issues here, at issue is the word "fairness" and YOUR definition of it. He who controls the definition controls the narrative, you assume that your definition is the only one that counts and THAT'S the flaw in your argument.

 

[esthermoon]

"On December 19, the Electors of the Electoral College will cast their ballots. If they all vote the way their states voted, Donald Trump will win. However, they can vote for Hillary Clinton if they choose. Even in states where that is not allowed, their vote would still be counted, they would simply pay a small fine - which we can be sure Clinton supporters will be glad to pay!

We are calling on the Electors to ignore their states' votes and cast their ballots for Secretary Clinton."

Electoral College Electors: Electoral College Make Hillary Clinton President on December 19

More hypocrisy.

Would it be possible?