Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/more-than-half-of-arrested-anti-trump-protesters-didnt-vote/351964445

This actually restores my faith in people using their First Amendment rights appropriately.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 ender502 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 ender502 wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 ender502 wrote:

This isn't difficult. This isn't revolutionary. This is just the rules as written. If Indiana wants their electors to vote for the person who won their popular vote then they would have passed a statute. They haven't.

What are you talking about?

Indiana is a winner take all state. Trump won the popular vote, there. The majority that voted, voted for Trump. Trump gets the EC votes.

What are you arguing for, here? Help me out.

It's absolutely tampering. We had an election to elect Electors to the Electoral College to represent the people in each state. That election was held on Nov 8th. Now you want to contact those Electors and try to influence their opinion. That's not how the system works. We hold an election, we elect Electors, the Electors we elected vote on Dec 19th. That's the system. The system isn't that we elect Electors on Election Day and then we try to start letter writing campaigns to convince the Electors to vote the way the people writing the letter want them to vote. You had your say on Election day when you voted for Electors you don't get to keep campaigning and the Electors are under no obligation to listen to you. On the one hand you are arguing for the Electors to be independent of the people yet simultaneously on the other hand you're arguing for the Electors to listen to YOU specifically and be influenced by YOUR argument. Either the Electors are independent in which case you should leave them alone or they Electors should listen to the Election Day results in their state, in which case you should leave them alone. What isn't ok is for you to try to convince lots of people to harass the Electors in the hopes of influencing the outcome of their vote on Dec 19th, that's the very definition of tampering.

That's actually not the definition of tampering. Tampering only effects votes already cast. We are talking about votes that haven't been cast.

Ofcourse, if you at thinking about stars where the electoral and popular vote are linked, then encouraging someone to go against the statutory mandate might be conspiracy. But we aren't talking about them. We are discussing those states where there is no link between popular and electoral votes. It's a very different situation.

ender502

If you think Electors can be swayed by letter writing campaigns then they aren't independent Electors casting their votes for whichever candidate they feel is best, which then defeats your argument that Electors are independent. If Electors can be swayed by the people why would your letters hold more weight of influence than the millions of votes cast in the state the Electors were elected to represent? You are seeking to overturn the lawful votes cast by millions of US citizens by virtue of doxing Electors and sending them letters. That is undue influence and is tampering. If you want the Electors to be independent you should leave them alone and let them make whatever choice they feel is best.

That's just silly. Should they not watch the news because it may influence them?

Prestor Jon wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


The Electors can make their own decisions. We had Election Day, we chose the Electors with our votes, we had our say, there's no justification for harassing letter writing campaigns to Electors.

Also, a lawful democratic election isn't tyranny of any kind in any way.

Then why have the EC? If there's no tyranny of any kind during an election, why is it needed?

maybe someone here could help me out, who all could they vote for? I know the petition wants sanders, but could they just vote Joe Exotic or me into office?

The Electors exist to cast votes for the presidential candidate of their choice. We cast ballots on Election Day to select Electors that we believe will choose the candidate we would prefer them to choose. The Electors chosen by their state then cast their electoral votes for a presidential candidate on Dec 19th. Since the Electors are elected by the people of their state the Electors vote for the candidate the won the voting in their state.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/Why-Keep-The-Electoral-College.htm
"The Founding Fathers had seen the dangers of placing ultimate power into a single set of human hands. Accordingly, they feared that placing unlimited power to elect the president into the politically naive hands of the people could lead to a "tyranny of the majority." In response, they created the Electoral College system as a process to insulate the selection of the president from the whims of the public."

the EC either needs to save us from the whims of trump supports or it needs to be done away with. You'd think even trump supports would be willing to change their votes now that trump has said he's keeping obamacare and not building the wall.

Hmm seems parts of this country are more divided than ever, is there any chance of reconciliation or are we actually moving towards a real second Civil War?

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Ben is just one of those "just because you are smart doesn't mean you can't be stupid" people. Great surgeon, just no idea why he thought he could run the country.

Looking over the group of folks that ran on both sides makes me wonder how things would have turned out if Biden's son wouldn't have died.

I would have voted for Biden.

As opposed to Trump? You betcha!

In the history of the EC, have they ever voted contrary to the President-elect as determined by the Nov election?
Basically, has there ever been a time in which the country thought that candidate A won the general election, yet come Dec, the EC chose candidate B instead?

If that is not truly possible, they why have an EC? Why elect Electors when we could just give their number of votes. For example, TX has 38 EC votes and is a "winner takes all" state. If the EC cannot (or will not) change their votes, then what is the point of "electing" them.

If the EC is to protect the people from themselves, then they should have the power to vote for a different candidate. And that power SHOULD be used often enough that is isn't a fore-gone conclusion that candidate A has won.

EDIT: I cannot remember who posted this as it was sooooo many pages ago, but someone here quoted Trump himself as saying the EC was flawed and needed to go.
At first I thought that was funny considering the EC is what won him the election, yet if the EC ACTUALLY DOES WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO DO then Trump's statement makes sense to me now. He may be in danger of actually losing because of the EC.....but I doubt it sadly.

-

 jasper76 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


It's not about tampering, its the reason for the EC. This is the time they need to step up and save us from tyranny. We are about to suffer the tyranny of the majority from the red states

Trump supporters would be saying the same thing in reverse if Clinton got elected.

Just like in 2008 and 2012?

Or did they whine a bit but leave the electors alone?

I don't remember Obama ever losing the popular vote, so I don't see the correlation here. I.e. in Obama's case, the electoral college results were not in conflict with the popular vote, as is the casewi th Trump and was the case when GW Bush first got elected IIRC.

The correlation is a gak ton of folks were upset he won. Except they didn't riot and start harassment campaigns against the electors. Clinton lost the popular vote in enough states that she took the biggest Electoral College loss the Dems have had in ages. She lost over 200 counties Obama won twice, and more he won once. She saw states flip that had been reliably D.

She took a major fething beating.

And yet, a bunch of special snow flakes refuse to accept she lost the game she played.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Ben is just one of those "just because you are smart doesn't mean you can't be stupid" people. Great surgeon, just no idea why he thought he could run the country.

Looking over the group of folks that ran on both sides makes me wonder how things would have turned out if Biden's son wouldn't have died.

I would have voted for Biden.

I think a lot of people would have, he has the "tells it like it is" thing going for him as well. Joe "this is a big fething deal" Biden.

In the end, the same attitude that kept him from running is also what would have made him a good president I think.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Ben is just one of those "just because you are smart doesn't mean you can't be stupid" people. Great surgeon, just no idea why he thought he could run the country.

Looking over the group of folks that ran on both sides makes me wonder how things would have turned out if Biden's son wouldn't have died.

I would have voted for Biden.

I think a lot of people would have, he has the "tells it like it is" thing going for him as well. Joe "this is a big fething deal" Biden.

In the end, the same attitude that kept him from running is also what would have made him a good president I think.

They made fun of him about Iraq that it would split into three mini nations. Guess what...

I think Obama would have rolled on Clinton and supported him as well.

 CptJake wrote:


The correlation is a gak ton of folks were upset he won. Except they didn't riot and start harassment campaigns against the electors. Clinton lost the popular vote in enough states that she took the biggest Electoral College loss the Dems have had in ages. She lost over 200 counties Obama won twice, and more he won once. She saw states flip that had been reliably D.

She took a major fething beating.

And yet, a bunch of special snow flakes refuse to accept she lost the game she played.

Texas literally threatened to secede when Obama won, and had a petition with 64,000 signatures. Guess special snowflakes come in both Red and Blue.

Trump is a special snowflake who called for this same behavior on 2012.

 CptJake wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


It's not about tampering, its the reason for the EC. This is the time they need to step up and save us from tyranny. We are about to suffer the tyranny of the majority from the red states

Trump supporters would be saying the same thing in reverse if Clinton got elected.

Just like in 2008 and 2012?

Or did they whine a bit but leave the electors alone?

I don't remember Obama ever losing the popular vote, so I don't see the correlation here. I.e. in Obama's case, the electoral college results were not in conflict with the popular vote, as is the casewi th Trump and was the case when GW Bush first got elected IIRC.

The correlation is a gak ton of folks were upset he won. Except they didn't riot and start harassment campaigns against the electors. Clinton lost the popular vote in enough states that she took the biggest Electoral College loss the Dems have had in ages. She lost over 200 counties Obama won twice, and more he won once. She saw states flip that had been reliably D.

She took a major fething beating.

And yet, a bunch of special snow flakes refuse to accept she lost the game she played.

I don't think a popular election victory with an electoral college defeat can be seriously called a "major fething beating". But I don't want to argue about it either. Electoral college shennanigans won't change the fact that she lost fair and square and Donald Trump is the next US President. If that's too hard a pill to swallow, I suggest more productive activities like boycotts, protests, etc.

 CptJake wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


It's not about tampering, its the reason for the EC. This is the time they need to step up and save us from tyranny. We are about to suffer the tyranny of the majority from the red states

Trump supporters would be saying the same thing in reverse if Clinton got elected.

Just like in 2008 and 2012?

Or did they whine a bit but leave the electors alone?

I don't remember Obama ever losing the popular vote, so I don't see the correlation here. I.e. in Obama's case, the electoral college results were not in conflict with the popular vote, as is the casewi th Trump and was the case when GW Bush first got elected IIRC.

The correlation is a gak ton of folks were upset he won. Except they didn't riot and start harassment campaigns against the electors. Clinton lost the popular vote in enough states that she took the biggest Electoral College loss the Dems have had in ages. She lost over 200 counties Obama won twice, and more he won once. She saw states flip that had been reliably D.

She took a major fething beating.

And yet, a bunch of special snow flakes refuse to accept she lost the game she played.

Hookay there buddy

 Galef wrote:
In the history of the EC, have they ever voted contrary to the President-elect as determined by the Nov election?

Only once has an EC ballot been contrary to a given state's vote; Virginia 1835 and this was back when the Vice President ran on a separate ticket. Virginia's Electors threw their 23 votes against that of the state to support to someone other than popular vote winner Richard Johnson. He was too friendly with his slave consort for the sensibilities of the planter class, whom the electors were drawn from. Think of it as America's first major sex scandal. Because of this Johnson didn't have an electoral majority (short 1 vote XD) so it is the first and only time the Senate ever exercised its power to pick a VP. They picked Johnson anyway.

It has never happened with the President.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


The correlation is a gak ton of folks were upset he won. Except they didn't riot and start harassment campaigns against the electors. Clinton lost the popular vote in enough states that she took the biggest Electoral College loss the Dems have had in ages. She lost over 200 counties Obama won twice, and more he won once. She saw states flip that had been reliably D.

She took a major fething beating.

And yet, a bunch of special snow flakes refuse to accept she lost the game she played.

Texas literally threatened to secede when Obama won, and had a petition with 64,000 signatures. Guess special snowflakes come in both Red and Blue.

Canada was tempting us with delicious bacon.

 Frazzled wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


The correlation is a gak ton of folks were upset he won. Except they didn't riot and start harassment campaigns against the electors. Clinton lost the popular vote in enough states that she took the biggest Electoral College loss the Dems have had in ages. She lost over 200 counties Obama won twice, and more he won once. She saw states flip that had been reliably D.

She took a major fething beating.

And yet, a bunch of special snow flakes refuse to accept she lost the game she played.

Texas literally threatened to secede when Obama won, and had a petition with 64,000 signatures. Guess special snowflakes come in both Red and Blue.

Canada was tempting us with delicious bacon.

Doesn't Texas still have wild boar? That gak is better than the domestic pig, IMO.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Galef wrote:
In the history of the EC, have they ever voted contrary to the President-elect as determined by the Nov election?

Only once has an EC ballot been contrary to a given state's vote; Virginia 1835 and this was back when the Vice President ran on a separate ticket. Virginia's Electors threw their 23 votes against that of the state to support to someone other than popular vote winner Richard Johnson. He was too friendly with his slave consort for the sensibilities of the planter class, whom the electors were drawn from. Think of it as America's first major sex scandal. Because of this Johnson didn't have an electoral majority (short 1 vote XD) so it is the first and only time the Senate ever exercised its power to pick a VP. They picked Johnson anyway.

It has never happened with the President.

So I must ask, if the EC is supposed to protect against the "tyranny of the majority" yet is has never changed its vote to do just that, why the feth does it exist?

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Hmm seems parts of this country are more divided than ever, is there any chance of reconciliation or are we actually moving towards a real second Civil War?

As long as we hold to the peaceful transition of power, I think our Civil Wars will thankfully be fought in the voting booths these days.

Because the Constitution is not toilet paper. To pass an amendment is like efffort man. We had to have a major war just to get three of them passed.

There have been (if you include this year) and 4 or 5 times the winner of the electoral college has not reflected the winner of the popular votes. HRC is ahead in the national vote BTW.

There has never been a time when "faithless electors" have swayed the election. Though as individuals they have gone against the popular vote about 150 times if I recall.

If that were to happen it would be without precedent.

The reality is that what people are trying to do now is perfectly legit under the rules that we have. And yes, if the shoe were on the other foot I would think HRC supporters would be throwing a fit...and wrongly so.

ender502






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Galef wrote:
In the history of the EC, have they ever voted contrary to the President-elect as determined by the Nov election?

Only once has an EC ballot been contrary to a given state's vote; Virginia 1835 and this was back when the Vice President ran on a separate ticket. Virginia's Electors threw their 23 votes against that of the state to support to someone other than popular vote winner Richard Johnson. He was too friendly with his slave consort for the sensibilities of the planter class, whom the electors were drawn from. Think of it as America's first major sex scandal. Because of this Johnson didn't have an electoral majority (short 1 vote XD) so it is the first and only time the Senate ever exercised its power to pick a VP. They picked Johnson anyway.

It has never happened with the President.

So I must ask, if the EC is supposed to protect against the "tyranny of the majority" yet is has never changed its vote to do just that, why the feth does it exist?

That's a great question... My personal theory is that the function to protect from the tyranny of the majority has never been needed. We may disagree on who ought to be president but most of the time the one that wins is basically a reasonable human being. The EC is like insurance. You may never need it but just in case......it's nice to have.

ender502

So, do you guys think Steve Bannon will survive the onslaught? Trump should probably sacrifice him as a show of magnanimity.

So... use the function to protect against tyranny of the majority, by having the EC change its votes to support the one who won the "majority"?

 Frazzled wrote:
http://www.kgw.com/news/local/more-than-half-of-arrested-anti-trump-protesters-didnt-vote/351964445

And this surprised absolutely no one on Dakka.

Trying to come to terms with the reality of a Trump Presidency, and I've been thinking about how things might turn out. One of my concerns is that Trump is a pretty big unknown, but I'm also concerned that many of the people he is surrounding himself with are pretty well known and their policies and statements are not something that gives me much faith. But some of the people also have policies and statements that seem to go against policies and statements that Trump has provided (which haven't been exactly consistent either).

Now I'm trying to figure out what to expect with these appointments. Is Trump going to let them decide all policy, is Trump going to be influenced by them and adjust his policy to match theirs, or will he expect them to adjust to him?

Just based on my opinion about Trump, I don't think he is that interested in handing out key positions based on merit, and that he will use them as rewards for loyalty and support. His whole campaign feels like a "pay for play" scheme where people paid with public support rather than cash. Of course, that's politics as usual though.

But Trump seems fickle, and Cristie already went from favored son in charge of the transition and is now seeing his work being taken apart after being accused of lackluster support of Trump.

So does Trump has a policy plan, or is he going to make it up as he goes along and (hopefully) adjust it to reality as he learns more about what is actually involved in governing and working with Congress. Will he be swayed and influenced by whoever he appoints? Will Giuliani get free reign as SoS and decide what our foreign policy will be? Or will he be axed as soon as he disagrees with Trump, either privately or publicly?

I guess my basic question is this: are these appointments simply rewards to powerful positions without much actual power to make policy and Trump will be in charge of actually coming up with stuff, or will they have the power as well as the prestige of these offices?

 d-usa wrote:
Trying to come to terms with the reality of a Trump Presidency, and I've been thinking about how things might turn out. One of my concerns is that Trump is a pretty big unknown, but I'm also concerned that many of the people he is surrounding himself with are pretty well known and their policies and statements are not something that gives me much faith. But some of the people also have policies and statements that seem to go against policies and statements that Trump has provided (which haven't been exactly consistent either).

Now I'm trying to figure out what to expect with these appointments. Is Trump going to let them decide all policy, is Trump going to be influenced by them and adjust his policy to match theirs, or will he expect them to adjust to him?

Just based on my opinion about Trump, I don't think he is that interested in handing out key positions based on merit, and that he will use them as rewards for loyalty and support. His whole campaign feels like a "pay for play" scheme where people paid with public support rather than cash. Of course, that's politics as usual though.

But Trump seems fickle, and Cristie already went from favored son in charge of the transition and is now seeing his work being taken apart after being accused of lackluster support of Trump.

So does Trump has a policy plan, or is he going to make it up as he goes along and (hopefully) adjust it to reality as he learns more about what is actually involved in governing and working with Congress. Will he be swayed and influenced by whoever he appoints? Will Giuliani get free reign as SoS and decide what our foreign policy will be? Or will he be axed as soon as he disagrees with Trump, either privately or publicly?

I guess my basic question is this: are these appointments simply rewards to powerful positions without much actual power to make policy and Trump will be in charge of actually coming up with stuff, or will they have the power as well as the prestige of these offices?

I think his picks can and will have have massive impacts on US policy. Trump doesn't have any government experience, so will likely defer to his cabinet on many issues since he faces a steep learning curve.

 djones520 wrote:
So... use the function to protect against tyranny of the majority, by having the EC change its votes to support the one who won the "majority"?

In this case we are asking the electors to use the discretion given to them to cast their vote (not change it) for the person some of us think would make the better president. That she happens to be winning the national popular vote is just a plus.

BTW, I absolutely disagree with attempts to ask electors whose vote votes are tied to their states popular vote to go against the state popular vote. That would be a violation of state law and potentially criminal conspiracy.

ender502

 djones520 wrote:
So... use the function to protect against tyranny of the majority, by having the EC change its votes to support the one who won the "majority"?

Why is the Tyranny of the Minority the lesser evil?

Maybe protect us from the tyranny of the majority of states?

 d-usa wrote:
Maybe protect us from the tyranny of the majority of states?

Why does that need protection, opposed to the tyranny of a minority of states imposing their will on the rest?

Why is one ok but the other isnt?

I mean its nice and all, but I dont enjoy these national elections being decided for me by the normal 10ish 'swing states' its usually decided for me by.