Electoral College: Make Hillary Clinton President on December 19

[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.

Would it be possible?

Possible, yes.

It would instantly throw the nation into civil war and the electors would be the first casualties. They could do it, but neither they nor the nation would survive such an act. It would be no different than Obama using armed men to refuse to leave office.

 

[Grizz]

"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?

Yes it would, however as another pointed out the results have to be certified by the House and they wouldn't allow it.

 

[Fueri]

I think we should have Steve Harvey tell her that on the 19th

 

[Grizz]

"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."

They were indeed concerned about the numerical disadvantages that "fly over" country faced. What the Left wants you to believe is that it's somehow "more fair" to let the majority rule.

 

[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?

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.

What also could have happened was many in the western states did not need to go out and vote because trump already had the electoral votes to win and it depressed the popular vote, in their states...they already knew their electoral votes would go to Hillary....and that is what usually happens in the western states.

 

[longknife]

"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.

The Electoral College worked exactly the way our Founders meant it to!!!!!

We are 50 states, not just the Leftist centers of NYC, Philly, Baltimore, Chicago, Smogvill, 'Frisco, Berkley, Portland, and Seattle.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Apparently the only results that are "valid" are those that the Left accepts.

Exactly.. remember them left going berserk over Texans talking about secession? Look at Oregon and California... now doing the same thing. Fucking whackaloons.

 

[Moxie2]

"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.

Yea, they have no idea what they are asking for.

They are breaking car windows. We support the second amendment, a pro Trump protest for trying to steal the election would look MUCH different.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

Cant we just impeach Hillary next week and send her to Canada?

Impeach her from what?

Hillary is unemployed, and has been for a while.

impeach her for being a witch.

then toss her into a lake,,,lets see if she floats

 

[Uncensored2008]

Apparently the only results that are "valid" are those that the Left accepts.

Exactly.. remember them left going berserk over Texans talking about secession? Look at Oregon and California... now doing the same thing. Fucking whackaloons.

Communists have always been hypocrites.

ONLY Texas has the legal right to secede. due to how they entered the Union.

 

[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 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?

Again, dimwit... it had NOTHING TO DO WITH horses and buggies! Why can't you pay attention for once? It's not that it would be hard to visit low population areas, it's because it would be incredibly STUPID when you can garner more VOTES elsewhere.

Yes, sometimes in a tight race, 3 electoral votes becomes important... 10 or 11 is certainly important. Do you think Trump spent all that time up in Wisconsin because he liked the cheese? Why would he have spent ANY time there when he could have spoken to 10x more people in California? Why would any candidate give a shit about 200k votes in Vermont? They could speak to that many people in 4-5 campaign stops in New York.

Now... IF politicians are going after PV and not EC... what do you suppose their policies and platforms would cater to? You think they will address the concerns of rural people? I understand our big cities are deep blue and chock-full of liberal morons... and you get all giddy inside thinking of the prospects that they would control ALL the politics in America... but that's exactly WHY the framers set up the system they did!

 

[Zoom-boing]

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?

Again, dimwit... it had NOTHING TO DO WITH horses and buggies! Why can't you pay attention for once? It's not that it would be hard to visit low population areas, it's because it would be incredibly STUPID when you can garner more VOTES elsewhere.

Yes, sometimes in a tight race, 3 electoral votes becomes important... 10 or 11 is certainly important. Do you think Trump spent all that time up in Wisconsin because he liked the cheese? Why would he have spent ANY time there when he could have spoken to 10x more people in California? Why would any candidate give a shit about 200k votes in Vermont? They could speak to that many people in 4-5 campaign stops in New York.

Now... IF politicians are going after PV and not EC... what do you suppose their policies and platforms would cater to? You think they will address the concerns of rural people? I understand our big cities are deep blue and chock-full of liberal morons... and you get all giddy inside thinking of the prospects that they would control ALL the politics in America... but that's exactly WHY the framers set up the system they did!

I continue to be flabbergasted that so many people truly do not seem to understand why the EV system is fairer (and better) than a PV system. I'm seeing this "let's do away w/the EV" shit is all over the place. Morons.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

3 President in the 1800's did not win the Popular vote.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I continue to be flabbergasted that so many people truly do not seem to understand why the EV system is fairer (and better) than a PV system. I'm seeing this "let's do away w/the EV" shit is all over the place. Morons.

The Communists are spoiled little children who didn't get their way and are having a temper tantrum. Most of them want a central dictator to be their daddy, to tell them what to do and "care for them." The concept of independent states who have interests to be protected is foreign to them. Hollywood dictates how they think, so why shouldn't California and New York alone appoint our ruler?