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.
Why are we wasting time discussing the idea of the electoral college overturning the results of the election as if it was a viable plan to remove Trump? Electors are chosen from party loyalists, you're essentially arguing that we should lobby Trump's campaign organizers to vote for their opponent instead of the guy they worked to elect. This is not going to happen unless there's a major scandal between now and the official vote, and I mean something on the level of Trump testing his "I can shoot someone and get away with it" theory or that "Trump raped a kid" accusation turning out to have video proof. So far that hasn't happened, and until it does speculating about reversing the electoral votes is nothing more than wishful thinking.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peregrine wrote: Why are we wasting time discussing the idea of the electoral college overturning the results of the election as if it was a viable plan to remove Trump? Electors are chosen from party loyalists, you're essentially arguing that we should lobby Trump's campaign organizers to vote for their opponent instead of the guy they worked to elect. This is not going to happen unless there's a major scandal between now and the official vote, and I mean something on the level of Trump testing his "I can shoot someone and get away with it" theory or that "Trump raped a kid" accusation turning out to have video proof. So far that hasn't happened, and until it does speculating about reversing the electoral votes is nothing more than wishful thinking.
I think we're on the "Bargaining" Stage of grief mostly
d-usa wrote: Maybe protect us from the tyranny of the majority of states?
That makes little sense. If the minority of states are choosing the president then its wrong, if the majority are in favor of it and have the highest population. then by all means yes they should represent us and our country.
Half the population lives in rural half in cities.
Candidates can win just with 11 states. Electoral College does not assure more states.
We should have states represented by more than just the electoral college.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Why are we wasting time discussing the idea of the electoral college overturning the results of the election as if it was a viable plan to remove Trump? Electors are chosen from party loyalists, you're essentially arguing that we should lobby Trump's campaign organizers to vote for their opponent instead of the guy they worked to elect. This is not going to happen unless there's a major scandal between now and the official vote, and I mean something on the level of Trump testing his "I can shoot someone and get away with it" theory or that "Trump raped a kid" accusation turning out to have video proof. So far that hasn't happened, and until it does speculating about reversing the electoral votes is nothing more than wishful thinking.
I haven't, I think the electoral college is a problem that will only worsen with time. I tossed my vote, but I voted liberal and conservative. (Well I didn't vote for president mostly because I live in Kent County in Michigan which went all red no matter what I did).
I think electoral college should be discussed, as I don't think it is made for a republic or a 'federation'
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/15 23:27:02
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
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?
Coz the minority is by definition smaller.
I'm here all week!
For those worrying about how Trump's presidency will turn out, the Economist has a series of very good articles.
Kilkrazy wrote: The point of the various states is that they are different, so one cannot be a lab to test things for use in another.
Though, my point is that the differences between states are fading as the lines are blurred through modern communications and such. I've lived in three separate states and five different cities. I don't get my news from the local paper, I get it from CNN.com. I don't watch local broadcast TV, i watch streaming videos and cable channels. My extended family (that I know of) lives in four different states. I spend more time talking to you guys here, across the country and world, than I do to my next door neighbors. And I'm by far not the only person like that.
There is a point in that, however how much difference does it make in practice? For example, the growth of online media hasn't led Americans to read a wide variety of foreign press giving them a new perspective on current affairs. Instead, lots of them have dived into echo chamber bunkers of lies and innuendo (particularly on the right wing, as it happens.)
Also, there is a social theory that populations are being divided or united less by their geography and more by their shared economic/educational status and world views. That is to say, the digital elite of Germany, Britain and Singapore have got more in common with each other than they have with the working class of their own countries. I think there is a degree of merit in this argument, and it helps resolve the issue about youngsters being anti-Brexit and anti-Trump, but I would not take it too far.
To be fair to the working class, it's a lot harder to have a wide-ranging world view when you are scrabbling to make your next mortgage payment rather than to afford a long weekend in Lisbon or the Bahamas.
Peregrine wrote: Why are we wasting time discussing the idea of the electoral college overturning the results of the election as if it was a viable plan to remove Trump?
I think we're on the "Bargaining" Stage of grief mostly
That would explain a lot. Most of us on the Republican side went through all this during the Primaries and have been at "Acceptance" for months now.
Peregrine wrote: Why are we wasting time discussing the idea of the electoral college overturning the results of the election as if it was a viable plan to remove Trump?
I think we're on the "Bargaining" Stage of grief mostly
That would explain a lot. Most of us on the Republican side went through all this during the Primaries and have been at "Acceptance" for months now.
Acceptances I'm on : Don't Care Anymore its old news.
Its interesting when you hate both candidates but are horrified more by the reaction than the win.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Peregrine wrote: Why are we wasting time discussing the idea of the electoral college overturning the results of the election as if it was a viable plan to remove Trump?
I think we're on the "Bargaining" Stage of grief mostly
That would explain a lot. Most of us on the Republican side went through all this during the Primaries and have been at "Acceptance" for months now.
Not to mention that it's ever becoming more clear that Trump has no intention of "burning it down" "draining the swamp" or even "shaking it up", and rather is going to continue along with Repub business as usual. Except he's going to head it up with the worst candidates rather than the best from the party. It will really be up to the R's in the trenches, so to speak, to keep the US on an even keel.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Peregrine wrote: Why are we wasting time discussing the idea of the electoral college overturning the results of the election as if it was a viable plan to remove Trump? Electors are chosen from party loyalists, you're essentially arguing that we should lobby Trump's campaign organizers to vote for their opponent instead of the guy they worked to elect. This is not going to happen unless there's a major scandal between now and the official vote, and I mean something on the level of Trump testing his "I can shoot someone and get away with it" theory or that "Trump raped a kid" accusation turning out to have video proof. So far that hasn't happened, and until it does speculating about reversing the electoral votes is nothing more than wishful thinking.
Right there with you buddy!
It's a coping strategy... they're all almost at the acceptance phase.
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.
ender502
Isn't that what the Electoral election is for? You already had your say. You're basically asking 39 electors to betray their voters, who entrusted them to vote for their candidate.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/15 23:42:49
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
Peregrine wrote: Why are we wasting time discussing the idea of the electoral college overturning the results of the election as if it was a viable plan to remove Trump?
I think we're on the "Bargaining" Stage of grief mostly
That would explain a lot. Most of us on the Republican side went through all this during the Primaries and have been at "Acceptance" for months now.
Acceptances I'm on : Don't Care Anymore its old news.
Its interesting when you hate both candidates but are horrified more by the reaction than the win.
Peregrine wrote: Why are we wasting time discussing the idea of the electoral college overturning the results of the election as if it was a viable plan to remove Trump? Electors are chosen from party loyalists, you're essentially arguing that we should lobby Trump's campaign organizers to vote for their opponent instead of the guy they worked to elect. This is not going to happen unless there's a major scandal between now and the official vote, and I mean something on the level of Trump testing his "I can shoot someone and get away with it" theory or that "Trump raped a kid" accusation turning out to have video proof. So far that hasn't happened, and until it does speculating about reversing the electoral votes is nothing more than wishful thinking.
Now you are hitting on it and only missing by a bit... The electors are chosen amongst party loyalists but not necesarily candidate loyalists. We have no idea IF the electors, in the popular vote, voted for their party's candidate or not. The odds on flipping a vote seem pretty crappy. But how many republican party stalwats spoke out against trump? You know...those party loyalists that do things like get chosen to be an elector. Right now the electors that we are discussing have been chosen by the republican party. These aren't undecided voters. These are people that would only vot ethe other way if something really crazy happened. Lie, i don't know, the president elect has as a special advisor a white nationalist?
And if the mere improbability or difficulty of a thing is enough to dissuade you from action.... well, I guess slavery never ended. I guess women never got the right to vote, or prohibition happened, or we went to the moon or broke the sound barrier., etc..
I don't think anyone is saying this is a slam dunk. The odds are crazy long. But some times you have to play the bad odds. But if this did ever happen I do think this is the time that it would happen.
ender502
"Burning the aquila into the retinas of heretics is the new black." - Savnock
"The ignore button is for pansees who can't deal with their own problems. " - H.B.M.C.
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!
I would also gladly have voted for Biden over any of the candidates this cycle, and most of last, but sadly it was too much this time, it would not have been right to ask more of the Biden family this election.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/15 23:43:03
Peregrine wrote: Why are we wasting time discussing the idea of the electoral college overturning the results of the election as if it was a viable plan to remove Trump?
I think we're on the "Bargaining" Stage of grief mostly
That would explain a lot. Most of us on the Republican side went through all this during the Primaries and have been at "Acceptance" for months now.
Acceptances I'm on : Don't Care Anymore its old news.
Its interesting when you hate both candidates but are horrified more by the reaction than the win.
Indeed...
Strange times eh?
It is, never though I would think I would disagree with every candidate put forward except Joe Exotic.
That and also the fact that I disagree with most of my friends and also think that this entire campagin has been exhausting to watch.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/15 23:54:24
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
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.
ender502
Isn't that what the Electoral election is for? You already had your say. You're basically asking 39 electors to betray their voters.
Nope. It would only be a betrayal if the electors were bound to vote in a particular manner as defined by state law. We are talking about electors that are not bound by anything other than their own conscience.
ender502
"Burning the aquila into the retinas of heretics is the new black." - Savnock
"The ignore button is for pansees who can't deal with their own problems. " - H.B.M.C.
ender502 wrote: But how many republican party stalwats spoke out against trump?
There is a huge difference between speaking out against your party's candidate, especially during the primaries, and a completely unprecedented act of reversing the state's vote in favor of the opposing party's candidate.
Lie, i don't know, the president elect has as a special advisor a white nationalist?
Except we've known that this is what Trump stands for, and the party has still fallen in line behind him. If the republican party leadership didn't do anything about Trump prior to now (and remember, they could have declared someone else to be the candidate if they had wanted to do so) they aren't going to do it at the last second just because he did exactly what he promised to do.
And if the mere improbability or difficulty of a thing is enough to dissuade you from action.... well, I guess slavery never ended. I guess women never got the right to vote, or prohibition happened, or we went to the moon or broke the sound barrier., etc..
All of those things were accomplished by a long path of building up in smaller steps, with the end goal known to be possible. That's not at all the same thing as wishing for an instant miracle that, even if somehow happened, would likely have catastrophic consequences.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
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?
That's a an incredibly crazy false equivalency. The Electors can do whatever they choose to do. Watching the news would be their choice they are not choosing to be harassed by your letter writing campaign you are taking it upon yourself to send Electors unsolicited advise for the express purpose of changing the way they vote. YOUR opinion on who the Electors should vote isn't more meaningful than the opinion of the millions of people who voted for the Electors or the Electors' own personal opinions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: 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.
-
No that has never happened. In 53 of our 58 presidential elections the EC and the popular vote aligned and supported the same candidate. In the other 5 elections with an EC and popular vote split all of the Electors votes in accordance with the popular vote in their state. The EC has never actually acted independent of the voters who elected the Electors even though Federalist 68 shows that Hamilton thought they should.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/16 00:16:30
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.
ender502
Isn't that what the Electoral election is for? You already had your say. You're basically asking 39 electors to betray their voters.
Nope. It would only be a betrayal if the electors were bound to vote in a particular manner as defined by state law. We are talking about electors that are not bound by anything other than their own conscience.
ender502
No. they are bound by the promise to their voting base that they would vote for the chosen candidate.
With what you are suggesting, you might as well scrap the national vote and just let 538 electors decide without any input from the people.
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
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?
CNN.com had an interesting article the other day about what Trump's team could learn from Nixon. As Nixon got increasingly unstable, it fell more and more to his immediate subordinates to insulate him and keep things stable. The problem, ultimately, was that his subordinates were not good men themselves.
So, is Trump surrounding himself with good people who, as H.R. Haldeman said, "keep the dark side down; the light side up"?
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Peregrine wrote: Why are we wasting time discussing the idea of the electoral college overturning the results of the election as if it was a viable plan to remove Trump? Electors are chosen from party loyalists, you're essentially arguing that we should lobby Trump's campaign organizers to vote for their opponent instead of the guy they worked to elect. This is not going to happen unless there's a major scandal between now and the official vote, and I mean something on the level of Trump testing his "I can shoot someone and get away with it" theory or that "Trump raped a kid" accusation turning out to have video proof. So far that hasn't happened, and until it does speculating about reversing the electoral votes is nothing more than wishful thinking.
Now you are hitting on it and only missing by a bit... The electors are chosen amongst party loyalists but not necesarily candidate loyalists. We have no idea IF the electors, in the popular vote, voted for their party's candidate or not. The odds on flipping a vote seem pretty crappy. But how many republican party stalwats spoke out against trump? You know...those party loyalists that do things like get chosen to be an elector. Right now the electors that we are discussing have been chosen by the republican party. These aren't undecided voters. These are people that would only vot ethe other way if something really crazy happened. Lie, i don't know, the president elect has as a special advisor a white nationalist?
And if the mere improbability or difficulty of a thing is enough to dissuade you from action.... well, I guess slavery never ended. I guess women never got the right to vote, or prohibition happened, or we went to the moon or broke the sound barrier., etc..
I don't think anyone is saying this is a slam dunk. The odds are crazy long. But some times you have to play the bad odds. But if this did ever happen I do think this is the time that it would happen.
ender502
The Parties control ballot access, the entire primary process, the debates, the policing of the polling stations and the selection of Electors. Neither Party is ever going to willingly relinquish that control simply to appease a handful of people sending whiny letters to Electors. You need to start separating the Parties from the election process from the very beginning and work over time to minimize the influence of the Parties. You won't get the Republican Party to blow up the system and destabilize the country just because some people don't like Trump. Maybe all these anti Trump people should have gone out and voted when it mattered.
I haven't, I think the electoral college is a problem that will only worsen with time. I tossed my vote, but I voted liberal and conservative. (Well I didn't vote for president mostly because I live in Kent County in Michigan which went all red no matter what I did).
I think electoral college should be discussed, as I don't think it is made for a republic or a 'federation'
Not sure how a state that was expected to go blue, up until it didn't, went red no matter what you did. Espescially when you didn't vote for the top of any ticket. Just to be sure, you know that Michigan doesn't have some strange County Electoral College right?
The Constitution has a process for Americans to change it. The Electoral College would need an Amendment to the Constitution to modify it.
Good luck!
I for one would rather see more effort to amend the constitution to protect evolving societal norms rather than activist judges making silly with it.
Anywho, hello from another Kent County Michigander!
I haven't, I think the electoral college is a problem that will only worsen with time. I tossed my vote, but I voted liberal and conservative. (Well I didn't vote for president mostly because I live in Kent County in Michigan which went all red no matter what I did).
I think electoral college should be discussed, as I don't think it is made for a republic or a 'federation'
Not sure how a state that was expected to go blue, up until it didn't, went red no matter what you did. Espescially when you didn't vote for the top of any ticket. Just to be sure, you know that Michigan doesn't have some strange County Electoral College right?
The Constitution has a process for Americans to change it. The Electoral College would need an Amendment to the Constitution to modify it.
Good luck!
I for one would rather see more effort to amend the constitution to protect evolving societal norms rather than activist judges making silly with it.
Anywho, hello from another Kent County Michigander!
Yeah, the way your county breaks doesn't matter. They color counties to show the majority, but it's all at the state level. If the counties mattered, Republicans would win every election in a land slide.
ender502 wrote: But how many republican party stalwats spoke out against trump?
There is a huge difference between speaking out against your party's candidate, especially during the primaries, and a completely unprecedented act of reversing the state's vote in favor of the opposing party's candidate.
Lie, i don't know, the president elect has as a special advisor a white nationalist?
Except we've known that this is what Trump stands for, and the party has still fallen in line behind him. If the republican party leadership didn't do anything about Trump prior to now (and remember, they could have declared someone else to be the candidate if they had wanted to do so) they aren't going to do it at the last second just because he did exactly what he promised to do.
And if the mere improbability or difficulty of a thing is enough to dissuade you from action.... well, I guess slavery never ended. I guess women never got the right to vote, or prohibition happened, or we went to the moon or broke the sound barrier., etc..
All of those things were accomplished by a long path of building up in smaller steps, with the end goal known to be possible. That's not at all the same thing as wishing for an instant miracle that, even if somehow happened, would likely have catastrophic consequences.
This has never been accomplished. Nope. Not at all. But it is perfectly within the rules and the spirit of the founding fathers.
Why all the outrage? Finally understanding what your vote is worth? I'm just the messenger. Honestly, every post that is arguing against me is talking about right and wrong and betrayal and how we should just get over it or accept or some such other nonsense. No one has even touched the question of legality. Why? Because this attempt, though more than likely doomed to failure, is perfectly within the bounds of the rules. The EC has always had the power to short circuit the democratioc process. In fact, you can argue that it did in Bush v Gore when it voted against the will of the majority of the american populace.
Every argument you have made is false because it is based on a normative view...it's nothing but a serious of "oughts". What some are doing is no more illegal or wrong than talking politics with a stranger on the train.
If you don't like the way the electoral college works. Then change it.
I haven't, I think the electoral college is a problem that will only worsen with time. I tossed my vote, but I voted liberal and conservative. (Well I didn't vote for president mostly because I live in Kent County in Michigan which went all red no matter what I did).
I think electoral college should be discussed, as I don't think it is made for a republic or a 'federation'
Not sure how a state that was expected to go blue, up until it didn't, went red no matter what you did. Espescially when you didn't vote for the top of any ticket. Just to be sure, you know that Michigan doesn't have some strange County Electoral College right?
The Constitution has a process for Americans to change it. The Electoral College would need an Amendment to the Constitution to modify it.
Good luck!
I for one would rather see more effort to amend the constitution to protect evolving societal norms rather than activist judges making silly with it.
Anywho, hello from another Kent County Michigander!
No. The electoral college can be changed without an amendment to the constitution. States have defined the way in which votes are given in different manners without the constitution coming into play. Unless, that is, you are arguing that the system of giving all votes to the winner of the popular vote is unconstitutional. Is that what you are arguing?
ender502
Automatically Appended Next Post: [quote=Prestor Jon 698575 9021402 null
The Parties control ballot access, the entire primary process, the debates, the policing of the polling stations and the selection of Electors. Neither Party is ever going to willingly relinquish that control simply to appease a handful of people sending whiny letters to Electors. You need to start separating the Parties from the election process from the very beginning and work over time to minimize the influence of the Parties. You won't get the Republican Party to blow up the system and destabilize the country just because some people don't like Trump. Maybe all these anti Trump people should have gone out and voted when it mattered.
Whiny? Aaaahhh. Sweet. The pejoratives mean i'm winning.
And won't they blow it up? You seem to know exactly what those electors are going to do when the crunch comes. You must be a mind reader. Me? I don't know what they will do. Can i influence them? Probably not. But as long as I am within my rights to try, I will.
ender502
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/16 01:06:07
"Burning the aquila into the retinas of heretics is the new black." - Savnock
"The ignore button is for pansees who can't deal with their own problems. " - H.B.M.C.
It's not outrage, it's simple pragmatic acknowledgement that the idea you're talking about is not realistic. You might as well spend your time hoping that Trump is found dead in Pence's sex dungeon in a "tragic" accident, and Clinton wins because there's nobody else left. At least that theory has a bit of realism behind it in the fact that someone like Pence almost certainly has a dungeon full of gay sex.
Because they're party loyalists who are hand-picked for their determination not to blow up the system. It might in theory be possible to find an elector willing to change their vote, but finding enough to change the outcome of the election is wishful thinking at best.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/16 01:08:36
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Washington (CNN)Retiring Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, who was an outspoken supporter of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election, is set to introduce a Senate bill that aims to end the Electoral College.
Boxer announced in a statement on Tuesday that the bill, which she planned to introduce later Tuesday afternoon, would determine the winner of presidential elections by the outcome of the popular vote.
She cited President-elect Donald Trump's victory in the Electoral College despite Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's apparent popular vote advantage.
Trump now praises Electoral College, says he could have won popular vote
"In my lifetime, I have seen two elections where the winner of the general election did not win the popular vote," Boxer said in a statement. "The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately. Every American should be guaranteed that their vote counts."
"In 2012, Donald Trump tweeted, 'The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy,' " Boxer added. "I couldn't agree more. One person, one vote!"
According to CNN's election results as of Tuesday, Clinton won 61,329,657 votes and Trump won 60,530,867.
This is the fifth time in history that a nominee has won the popular vote but not the Electoral College. The same situation happened to Al Gore in 2000, when he lost to George W. Bush.
The actual likelihood of Boxer's bill passing is low. It's a proposed constitutional amendment, which would require passage not only by two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate, but then in three-quarters of states. A lame duck session and a Republican Congress will make it difficult to get such a bill through the legislative branch.
On Tuesday, Trump praised the Electoral College after previously criticizing the system. He said he could have won the popular vote if he campaigned differently.
Trump tweeted he would have won the populous states of Florida, New York and California if he had spent more time campaigning there.
The Parties control ballot access, the entire primary process, the debates, the policing of the polling stations and the selection of Electors. Neither Party is ever going to willingly relinquish that control simply to appease a handful of people sending whiny letters to Electors. You need to start separating the Parties from the election process from the very beginning and work over time to minimize the influence of the Parties. You won't get the Republican Party to blow up the system and destabilize the country just because some people don't like Trump. Maybe all these anti Trump people should have gone out and voted when it mattered.
Whiny? Aaaahhh. Sweet. The pejoratives mean i'm winning.
And won't they blow it up? You seem to know exactly what those electors are going to do when the crunch comes. You must be a mind reader. Me? I don't know what they will do. Can i influence them? Probably not. But as long as I am within my rights to try, I will.
ender502
You want to influence the Electors. Why? Because the Electors might vote for Trump. Why would the Electors select Trump? Because tens of millions of voters across dozens of state went out on Election Day and voted for Trump giving Trump a majority of the vote in those states. You don't want those tens of millions of voters to have their voices heard you don't want those tens of millions of voters to influence the Electors. No, the only person you want to influence the Electors is YOU. You openly admit that your goal is to influence the Electors to ignore the millions of people who voted for Trump and instead vote in accordance to YOUR opinion because you want the Electors to make the correct decision the decision that you want, the decision that silences millions of voters in favor of your voice because you're right and they're wrong. Yeah whiny was the wrong adjective to use, I should have used egomaniacal or monstrous.
Washington (CNN)Retiring Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, who was an outspoken supporter of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election, is set to introduce a Senate bill that aims to end the Electoral College.
Boxer announced in a statement on Tuesday that the bill, which she planned to introduce later Tuesday afternoon, would determine the winner of presidential elections by the outcome of the popular vote.
She cited President-elect Donald Trump's victory in the Electoral College despite Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's apparent popular vote advantage.
Trump now praises Electoral College, says he could have won popular vote
"In my lifetime, I have seen two elections where the winner of the general election did not win the popular vote," Boxer said in a statement. "The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately. Every American should be guaranteed that their vote counts."
"In 2012, Donald Trump tweeted, 'The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy,' " Boxer added. "I couldn't agree more. One person, one vote!"
According to CNN's election results as of Tuesday, Clinton won 61,329,657 votes and Trump won 60,530,867.
This is the fifth time in history that a nominee has won the popular vote but not the Electoral College. The same situation happened to Al Gore in 2000, when he lost to George W. Bush.
The actual likelihood of Boxer's bill passing is low. It's a proposed constitutional amendment, which would require passage not only by two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate, but then in three-quarters of states. A lame duck session and a Republican Congress will make it difficult to get such a bill through the legislative branch.
On Tuesday, Trump praised the Electoral College after previously criticizing the system. He said he could have won the popular vote if he campaigned differently.
Trump tweeted he would have won the populous states of Florida, New York and California if he had spent more time campaigning there.
I'm sure Mitch McConnell will be sure to give that legislation all the attention it deserves.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/16 01:33:05
It's not outrage, it's simple pragmatic acknowledgement that the idea you're talking about is not realistic. You might as well spend your time hoping that Trump is found dead in Pence's sex dungeon in a "tragic" accident, and Clinton wins because there's nobody else left. At least that theory has a bit of realism behind it in the fact that someone like Pence almost certainly has a dungeon full of gay sex.
Because they're party loyalists who are hand-picked for their determination not to blow up the system. It might in theory be possible to find an elector willing to change their vote, but finding enough to change the outcome of the election is wishful thinking at best.
Realistic. Really. Really? Sorry, but to hell with realistic. "Realistic" is the dog whistle for "accept what the power structure tells you." No thanks. I'll take idealism anyday. I'll take the will to tilt at windmills over meek acceptance every time. Is it realistic? nah but I am cool with that.
I put the chances of effectively manipulating the electoral voters somewhere between nil and laughable. Change happens. It always starts as seemimgly unrealistic.
ender502
"Burning the aquila into the retinas of heretics is the new black." - Savnock
"The ignore button is for pansees who can't deal with their own problems. " - H.B.M.C.
d-usa wrote: I also think that the "50 states = 50 labs" thing quit being a real thing as soon as parties became a thing. Now we have "50 states = 2 groups of labs". It's not Texas vs California vs Oklahoma vs Nebraska vs Michigan vs Vermont, it's Red States vs Blue States.
It also only works to the extent that political parties actually look at the results of state experiments. Kansas put through its big tax cut, Brownback even called it an experiment, believing huge growth driven by the cut would offset the reduced revenue. It failed, growth didn't increase, it flatlined (partly through factors outside of the policy, but also possibly through infrastructure cuts made necessary by the reduced tax revenue). The experiment happened in the Kansas lab... and Republicans totally ignored it and came in to this election promising big new tax cuts that would pay for themselves through increased growth.
Now Trump and the Republicans will get their big tax cut, and if anyone out there believes that suddenly this time it will work then I've got a bridge to sell you. Actually, Mr Trump has a bridge to sell you, because it turns out his infrastructure program is just a plan to privatise a lot of national assets.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
ender502 wrote: Change happens. It always starts as seemimgly unrealistic.
And it happens with time. A realistic path to change is campaigning to eliminate the electoral college and move to a direct vote for president. Various political factors make this unlikely to succeed right now, but there is significant opposition to the system that could be built on. An unrealistic path to change is a desperate Hail Mary attempt to change the system overnight, which depends on Trump's loyal supporters deciding to elect their sworn enemy instead of the person they worked to elect. You're free to spend your time and effort on your futile effort, but don't think that you're doing anything other than making yourself feel better about Doing Something To Help.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Washington (CNN)Retiring Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, who was an outspoken supporter of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election, is set to introduce a Senate bill that aims to end the Electoral College.
Boxer announced in a statement on Tuesday that the bill, which she planned to introduce later Tuesday afternoon, would determine the winner of presidential elections by the outcome of the popular vote.
She cited President-elect Donald Trump's victory in the Electoral College despite Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's apparent popular vote advantage.
Trump now praises Electoral College, says he could have won popular vote
"In my lifetime, I have seen two elections where the winner of the general election did not win the popular vote," Boxer said in a statement. "The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately. Every American should be guaranteed that their vote counts."
"In 2012, Donald Trump tweeted, 'The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy,' " Boxer added. "I couldn't agree more. One person, one vote!"
According to CNN's election results as of Tuesday, Clinton won 61,329,657 votes and Trump won 60,530,867.
This is the fifth time in history that a nominee has won the popular vote but not the Electoral College. The same situation happened to Al Gore in 2000, when he lost to George W. Bush.
The actual likelihood of Boxer's bill passing is low. It's a proposed constitutional amendment, which would require passage not only by two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate, but then in three-quarters of states. A lame duck session and a Republican Congress will make it difficult to get such a bill through the legislative branch.
On Tuesday, Trump praised the Electoral College after previously criticizing the system. He said he could have won the popular vote if he campaigned differently.
Trump tweeted he would have won the populous states of Florida, New York and California if he had spent more time campaigning there.
I'm sure Mitch McConnell will be sure to give that legislation all the attention it deserves.
Republicans don't read the bills, all they have to do is call it "the republicans are just fantastic bill" and it's sure to pass. Then if Mitch still doesn't go for it, just offer his state a few more EC votes to go along with it, he'd buy it.
He should be worried though, when trump says he's going to drain the swamp, Mitch is the plug holding back the water.
3000
4000 
~4100
~1660
