• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Will every Republican delegate select Trump?

lionking

In the Peanut Gallery
lionking
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
58,009
Location
Melbourne
I've spoken to a number of Americans today (I'm in Hawaii) and some have conjectured that Trump is so hated by the Republican establishment that at least some delegates won't cast a ballot for him. The rationale I've heard is that the GOP, or at least some of it, will be so satisfied with a majority in both houses that thay are willing to sacrifice the presidency given that it would go to such an utterly non-Republican candidate as Trump.

Clutching at straws no doubt, but any chance at all?
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
I've spoken to a number of Americans today (I'm in Hawaii) and some have conjectured that Trump is so hated by the Republican establishment that at least some delegates won't cast a ballot for him. The rationale I've heard is that the GOP, or at least some of it, will be so satisfied with a majority in both houses that thay are willing to sacrifice the presidency given that it would go to such an utterly non-Republican candidate as Trump.

Clutching at straws no doubt, but any chance at all?
Click to expand...

Zero chance.
 
Doghouse Reilly said:
Zero chance.
Click to expand...

Not zero, but vanishingly small, even though a case like this is pretty much why we originally had the electoral college rather than a simple majority vote, if I recall correctly. It was a final vetting of a candidate, so that the uneducated masses didn't actually elect a really, really bad candidate.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
Not zero, but vanishingly small, even though a case like this is pretty much why we originally had the electoral college rather than a simple majority vote, if I recall correctly.
Click to expand...

What if we see more appalling news about Trump's previous behaviour? Like a credible rape allegation? This is entirely hypothetical, but if a rape charge were to be laid, wouldn't delegates think twice?
 
Zero chance. Cruz changed to supporting Trump due to the Supreme Court. No way the rest of the Repubs are going to risk the 30-year massive majority they are going to have in the SC in order to spite DT.
 
lionking said:
I've spoken to a number of Americans today (I'm in Hawaii) and some have conjectured that Trump is so hated by the Republican establishment that at least some delegates won't cast a ballot for him. The rationale I've heard is that the GOP, or at least some of it, will be so satisfied with a majority in both houses that thay are willing to sacrifice the presidency given that it would go to such an utterly non-Republican candidate as Trump.

Clutching at straws no doubt, but any chance at all?
Click to expand...

I hope not. A stable democracy like the US can survive a bad president. I'm not sure it can survive if those dissatisfied with election results start tinkering with the process after the results are in.
 
lionking said:
What if we see more appalling news about Trump's previous behaviour? Like a credible rape allegation? This is entirely hypothetical, but if a rape charge were to be laid, wouldn't delegates think twice?
Click to expand...

It's highly unlikely, short of something like treason being proven, and even then it'd be unlikely to get enough of the delegates to change votes. Even moreso in this case, given the easily available information about Trump's misdeeds and moronics that's been around for a fair while. There have been very, very few cases where a delegate did not follow the will of the people for their state, and no case where the delegate changed the final result, I think.

Edit: I take that back, partially. There was one case where it affected the result, even if it didn't change the final result. The likeliest reason for the delegates to change their votes would be if Trump dies before the vote properly happens.
 
Last edited:
Okay, thanks for the responses. Bear in mind that this thread did not eventuate from a stupid Aussie CT, but from the thoughts of a couple of yanks. In a bar, to be perfectly honest. ;)
 
lionking said:
Okay, thanks for the responses. Bear in mind that this thread did not eventuate from a stupid Aussie CT, but from the thoughts of a couple of yanks. In a bar, to be perfectly honest. ;)
Click to expand...

It's simply that even the #NeverTrump Republicans cannot turn 270 electors to put someone else in. If enough of them voted 3rd party or switched to Hillary, they'd lose the White House.

As you can see from Paul Ryan getting out the chapstick and sequined knee pads, they are far too self-serving to give the presidency away, even if personally/morally they think Clinton is closer to their beliefs or positions.

Most of the GOP will hold their noses, pray that they are in safe positions where Trump's vengeance (and there will be a day of reckoning, believe me) won't be able to touch them, and hope he has a massive coronary.... BUT accepting the advantages for the party that come with control of all three branches: Executive, Legislative AND JUDICIARY. The court is totally political and will be more so. Poor old Ruth. She's going to be wheeled in on life support rather than allowing Trump another appointment. He already gets to appoint the majority judge. America needs to prepare itself for a conservative court for the next generation.
 
Foolmewunz said:
It's simply that even the #NeverTrump Republicans cannot turn 270 electors to put someone else in. If enough of them voted 3rd party or switched to Hillary, they'd lose the White House.

As you can see from Paul Ryan getting out the chapstick and sequined knee pads, they are far too self-serving to give the presidency away, even if personally/morally they think Clinton is closer to their beliefs or positions.

Most of the GOP will hold their noses, pray that they are in safe positions where Trump's vengeance (and there will be a day of reckoning, believe me) won't be able to touch them, and hope he has a massive coronary.... BUT accepting the advantages for the party that come with control of all three branches: Executive, Legislative AND JUDICIARY. The court is totally political and will be more so. Poor old Ruth. She's going to be wheeled in on life support rather than allowing Trump another appointment. He already gets to appoint the majority judge. America needs to prepare itself for a conservative court for the next generation.
Click to expand...

Yes you are right.

Never listen to Americans with a couple of Guinesses under their belt and an axe to grind. ;)
 
lionking said:
I've spoken to a number of Americans today (I'm in Hawaii) and some have conjectured that Trump is so hated by the Republican establishment that at least some delegates won't cast a ballot for him. The rationale I've heard is that the GOP, or at least some of it, will be so satisfied with a majority in both houses that thay are willing to sacrifice the presidency given that it would go to such an utterly non-Republican candidate as Trump.

Clutching at straws no doubt, but any chance at all?
Click to expand...

Why would Republican Electoral College vote for Hillary?
 
Foolmewunz said:
It's simply that even the #NeverTrump Republicans cannot turn 270 electors to put someone else in. If enough of them voted 3rd party or switched to Hillary, they'd lose the White House.
Click to expand...

If enough voted 3d party to throw it to the House, Trump would still win
 
lionking said:
I've spoken to a number of Americans today (I'm in Hawaii) and some have conjectured that Trump is so hated by the Republican establishment that at least some delegates won't cast a ballot for him. The rationale I've heard is that the GOP, or at least some of it, will be so satisfied with a majority in both houses that thay are willing to sacrifice the presidency given that it would go to such an utterly non-Republican candidate as Trump.

Clutching at straws no doubt, but any chance at all?
Click to expand...


You do realize that Hawaii is extremely Democrat.
 
Aridas said:
Not zero, but vanishingly small, even though a case like this is pretty much why we originally had the electoral college rather than a simple majority vote, if I recall correctly. It was a final vetting of a candidate, so that the uneducated masses didn't actually elect a really, really bad candidate.
Click to expand...

It was also the only system that would work in the days of horse and buggy communications.
 
casebro said:
It was also the only system that would work in the days of horse and buggy communications.
Click to expand...

Hmm? Not really. All it really does is add middlemen in between the popular vote and the victory and more directly control the amount of power that each state actually has to affect an election. I suppose that one could treat it as a distinct layer of fraud protection, for that matter. Either way, Horse and buggy communications would be quite sufficient to simply relay the results of the votes, given that the greater logistics issue, by far, would be counting them within a state to determine which way the vote for the electors should go.
 
Aridas said:
Not zero, but vanishingly small, even though a case like this is pretty much why we originally had the electoral college rather than a simple majority vote, if I recall correctly. It was a final vetting of a candidate, so that the uneducated masses didn't actually elect a really, really bad candidate.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the electoral college was created primarily so that the 3/5 Compromise could be worked into the presidential election process. A direct election had no way of accounting for slaves.
 
Last edited:
TellyKNeasuss said:
My understanding is that the electoral college was created primarily so that the 3/5 Compromise could be worked into the presidential election process. A direct election had no way of accounting for slaves.
Click to expand...

As I've seen a bit more since I've posted that, a bit more specifically, originally, it was what I pointed out. The "uneducated" concern largely disappeared with the introduction of larger organized political parties, though, but the college remained, even if the original assumptions about how electors would choose were already subverted by more than a little. Later, it was notably modified by the 3/5 Compromise as part of a political deal with the southern states because of the notable differences in free adult male populations and the strain that arose from that.

In short, though, no. The electoral college was created long before the 3/5 Compromise, though its current form is far more akin to its state after the 3/5 Compromise than with the original intention of the founders of the country. With that said, though, it has effectively changed rather significantly from its state then, too, given the various state additions, abolition of slavery, suffrage granted to women, and so on.

Incidentally, this is just a tangent, but... it looks like a voter in Wyoming's vote is worth about 4 times as much as a voter's vote in Texas.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom