He Hasn't Won The Election Yet

[ddt]

To be fair, I don't think that's a legitimate criticism.

The rules for voting were, indeed, established prior to the election. Those rules are that you don't vote for President. You vote for a slate of electors, and those electors then vote for whoever they wish. Well, some states put restrictions on the "whoever they wish" part. Exact rules vary from one state to the next.

So, asking electors to change their votes is playing within the rules.

This. Absolutely, you can ask them.

But, it isn't going to happen.

And this.

As to the restrictions that states put on electors, they come in three flavors:
1) no restrictions at all, you may freely be a faithless elector
2) faithless electors are fined (typically up to $1,000) or even jailed, but their vote stands
3) faithless electors' votes are voided and they're replaced by new electors (repeat until you have a faithful elector).

 

[Shadowdweller]

I hate Trump, and this would be a cure worse then the disease.

You know - that may be true. But my understanding is actually that Trump was exactly what the electoral college was originally designed to prevent. A demagogue elected by the imbecility of the masses.

 

[ddt]

God damn it, democracy is not democracy unless the vote agrees with my position!

We've got the same nonsense over here regarding the referendum to remain or leave the political construct that is the European Union.

Lots of people need to understand how democracy works. If every election result were to be contested on the basis of the result, the method and who got elected then the whole system would breakdown. And that goes for everyone.

I disagree with the comparison with the Brexit referendum.

The way American presidential elections go is clearly described in the constitution and is a fundamental part of the American democracy.

In the British political tradition, a referendum is a totally alien construct. Parliament is sovereign. And even if in the law that instituted the Brexit referendum, you say that parliament should vote to invoke article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, that still requires (probably) a second vote of parliament that cannot be bound by the law on the Brexit referendum. It´s totally legal if parliament would vote down a law to invoke article 50.

 

[theprestige]

this is my fantasy:

"BREAKING NEWS!!! newly discovered reports show Trump coordinated with the Russian govt. to spy on Clinton, steal her emails. Trump was also threatened by Putin that if he didn't allow them to invade/annex Latvia and Belarus, Putin would kill his Moscow real-estate deals. And Trump agreed".

that would be enough to end him

Your fantasy makes no sense. Trump has nothing to contribute to a Russian espionage and hacking effort.

Plus, news that a foreign government had indeed hacked Clinton's emails, which are known to contain classified information, would be fatal to her, regardless of Trump's involvement. To date her last line of defense has been that we have no evidence this has happened. Your fantasy depends on proving that it did.

Anyway, undermining betraying people's expectations about how elections are supposed to work is almost certainly a terrible method of trying to get your way. You want a civil war? Tell half the country their vote didn't count.

 

[grunion]

Anyway, undermining betraying people's expectations about how elections are supposed to work is almost certainly a terrible method of trying to get your way. You want a civil war? Tell half the country their vote didn't count.

Sounds precisely like what Trump was threatening to do had the electoral vote not gone his way.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Here's a Hail Mary:



Essentially, the argument is that even in those states where electors are bound, Hillary supporters can pay the fines they will incur for changing their vote.

I like it.

The petition now has 3.1 million signatures.

To be fair, I don't think that's a legitimate criticism.

The rules for voting were, indeed, established prior to the election. Those rules are that you don't vote for President. You vote for a slate of electors, and those electors then vote for whoever they wish. Well, some states put restrictions on the "whoever they wish" part. Exact rules vary from one state to the next.

So, asking electors to change their votes is playing within the rules.

This. Absolutely, you can ask them.

But, it isn't going to happen.

And this.

As to the restrictions that states put on electors, they come in three flavors:
1) no restrictions at all, you may freely be a faithless elector
2) faithless electors are fined (typically up to $1,000) or even jailed, but their vote stands
3) faithless electors' votes are voided and they're replaced by new electors (repeat until you have a faithful elector).

Thanks for that. Educational.

 

[Belz...]

The petition now has 3.1 million signatures.

A petition on the internet may as well have 3.5 quadrillion signatures. Most of which will be fake accounts anyway.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Funny how the Left claims to be the party of tolerance, yet they cannot tolerate the election process when their candidates lose fair and square........

With executives putting out memos that employees who voted Trump should resign? Trump voters beaten in the streets of Chicago. I don't think the Left is tolerant at all. Chris B.

 

[shuize]

Anyway, undermining betraying people's expectations about how elections are supposed to work is almost certainly a terrible method of trying to get your way. You want a civil war? Tell half the country their vote didn't count.

This.

Even as someone who didn't vote in the last election, if crybaby losers try to steal the election from Trump at this stage, I will consider returning from overseas to fight in the resulting civil war.

 

[grunion]

Trump and his supporters were prepared to nullify the election results had they not gone his way.

 

[BobTheCoward]

This.

Even as someone who didn't vote in the last election, if crybaby losers try to steal the election from Trump at this stage, I will consider returning from overseas to fight in the resulting civil war.

It isn't stealing. It is the legitimate Constitutional process.

 

[Caper]

It isn't stealing. It is the legitimate Constitutional process.

That explanation will go over well.

 

[Hercules56]

we can convince the Electoral College, to elect Hillary instead.

Trump is dangerous.

 

[BobTheCoward]

That explanation will go over well.

I don't have to explain crap. Middle school civics covered it.

 

[shuize]

It isn't stealing. It is the legitimate Constitutional process.

It's funny how I never hear any of this until Democrats lose.

The process works because the people believe their votes in selecting electors matter and that electors will abide by the results. Take that away and I hope you enjoy the resulting civil war. I already told you what side I'll be fighting on.

 

[BobTheCoward]

It's funny how I never hear any of this until Democrats lose.

The process works because the people believe their votes in selecting electors matter and that electors will abide by the result of their votes. Take that away and I hope you enjoy the resulting civil war. I already told you what side I'll be fighting on.

Not a liberal. Many people from giordano to mumblethrax can tell you that these are pretty much issues I argue about all the time.

The people don't get to expect something they made up in their head. They vote for a slate of electors that will then deliberate if they wish.

You are purposely picking the side of traitors in opposition to the Constitution. When people swear an oath to defend the Constitution, they are defending the very concept of faithless electors.

 

[Meadmaker]

This.

Even as someone who didn't vote in the last election, if crybaby losers try to steal the election from Trump at this stage, I will consider returning from overseas to fight in the resulting civil war.

How very brave of you, but I think you can rest assured that it won't happen.

Contemplate what it would take to change things. I think 37 pledged electors (assuming Michigan's go for Trump) would have to be faithless. Since 1900, a grand total of eight have changed their presidential vote.

The chance that you would end up fighting in that civil war is less than the chance that a millionaire's son with a heel spur on some foot or other would end up fighting in Vietnam.

Here is an interesting site, detailing every faithless elector since the founding of the Republic.

http://www.fairvote.org/faithless_electors

Some interesting tidbits. Earlier in the thread, the question was asked about Presidential candidates dying before the votes were cast. It has never happened, but at least two victorious vice presidential candidates died, and the people who changed their votes to vote for living individuals are listed among the faithless electors on the site.

No faithless elector has ever changed the result of an election. However, in one case, faithless electors did deny a majority to a vice presidential candidate. The election went to the Senate, where they voted for the guy who should have won the original election. There have been a lot more electors who were faithless to their vice presidential candidates than to their presidential candidates.

 

[Hercules56]

How very brave of you, but I think you can rest assured that it won't happen.

Contemplate what it would take to change things. I think 37 pledged electors (assuming Michigan's go for Trump) would have to be faithless. Since 1900, a grand total of eight have changed their presidential vote.

The chance that you would end up fighting in that civil war is less than the chance that a millionaire's son with a heel spur on some foot or other would end up fighting in Vietnam.

Here is an interesting site, detailing every faithless elector since the founding of the Republic.

http://www.fairvote.org/faithless_electors

Some interesting tidbits. Earlier in the thread, the question was asked about Presidential candidates dying before the votes were cast. It has never happened, but at least two victorious vice presidential candidates died, and the people who changed their votes to vote for living individuals are listed among the faithless electors on the site.

No faithless elector has ever changed the result of an election. However, in one case, faithless electors did deny a majority to a vice presidential candidate. The election went to the Senate, where they voted for the guy who should have won the original election. There have been a lot more electors who were faithless to their vice presidential candidates than to their presidential candidates.

#1. I think Wisconsin is going to flip to Hillary. Which makes it 238 to 280. Its also possible Michigan flips to Hillary, which gives her 254 Electoral votes.

#2. I think enough Republican Electors do NOT want Trump to be President.

#3. Hillary won the Popular Vote, by almost 400,000.

#4. Trump might pick some REAL idiots to have powerful positions in the Cabinet. Ben Carson, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and other idiots.

#5. More **** about Trump may be exposed by the news, or Leftist hackers.

#6. By early December, we may have enough reasons, to convince enough GOP Electors, to choose Hillary.

#7. The Democrats could make some huge offers to the GOP. Hillary could promise not to run for re-election. They could promise to lower corporate tax rates to 20%. They could promise to amend Obamacare.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I don't have to explain crap. Middle school civics covered it.

They played by the existing rules in place and they agreed to it. Trump won according to those rules. If you change it this point you only lend to the narrative of being a sore loser because the results didnt go the way some people wanted. It would give Trump and his base fodder to argue about a rigged system. And moreover. The moment you do that change. You set a precendent that the other side can refer back to as justification for the other side to do their own rigging.

I suggest those who want to change the rules do so for future elections.

 

[Hercules56]

They played by the existing rules in place and they agreed to it. Trump won according to those rules. If you change it this point you only lend to the narrative of being a sore loser because the results didnt go the way some people wanted. It would give Trump and his base fodder to argue about a rigged system. And moreover. The moment you do that change. You set a precendent that the other side can refer back to as justification for the other side to do their own rigging.

I suggest those who want to change the rules do so for future elections.

so Trump was a sore loser, in 2012?

he called for revolution, cause it looked like Romney won the Popular vote by Obama won the Electoral College.