So, any chance the electoral college will turn?

[Anonymous]

Change.org petition is up to nearly 4.5M.
https://www.change.org/p/electoral-college-electors-electoral-college-make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19

Do you think they have a snowball's chance in hell of turning enough electors?

Sigh. Wishful thinking, I suppose.

[Anonymous]

Doubtful.

I'm not sure I'd want them too. I actually think that would make things worse.

I think we just need to band together and make sure true evil ( the white supremacists and whatever code name they have for themselves) stay out and stay isolated.

We can work to change the rules of the electoral college.

[Anonymous]

It's starting. Two electors have flipped, and one from Texas has been undecided since August.

Democrats should align with moderate Republican Never Trump electors and those from Utah (Trump was strongly disliked throughout the state). Come to a compromise and push forward Romney or Kasich as PoTUS and Kaine as VP. Send it back to the House for a vote.

It will cause a Constitutional crisis, but I would rather fight the Trump/Alt-Right now than after they have power.

[Anonymous]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/electoral-college-effort-stop-trump-231350

[Anonymous]

Also, many of us voted with an understanding of the electoral college and chose to vote strategically.

I would never have voted for Hillary, but I live in DC, so a vote for Trump would have been "wasted." Instead, I voted for Johnson with the hope that he'd get 5% of the popular vote and secure $10 million for the Libertarian party in the next cycle. I'd like to have three viable candidates to choose from in the future.

Had I known that the election would be decided by popular vote rather then electoral college, I would have voted for Trump.

I am not alone. 3.3% of votes cast were cast for Johnson and 1.0% were cast for Stein, while Clinton is ahead by only 0.5:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2016/nov/08/us-election-2016-results-live-clinton-trump?view=map&type=presidential

Many, if not most, of the 4.3% of the voters who voted 3rd party did so because they understood the rules of electoral college. Had those voters known that the electoral college result would be ignored, they would probably have voted for a major party candidate, and many more would have voted for Trump than for Clinton since 3rd party voters are usually dissatisfied with the incumbent party..

Furthermore, we have not even considered the people who didn't bother to vote at all in solid red or solid blue states because they knew that their vote would not change the outcome in the electoral college. You might be able to argue that since they didn't bother to show up, they can't complain, but that would be a hard sell since you're changing the rules.

[Anonymous]

Faithless electors are not "changing the rules." This is actually a legitimate and legal quirk to our constitutional process for selecting a President. We, essentially, entrust our vote to these people, but they can override it without fault. Our Founding Fathers wanted it this way (read Alexander Hamilton).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Faithless electors are not "changing the rules." This is actually a legitimate and legal quirk to our constitutional process for selecting a President. We, essentially, entrust our vote to these people, but they can override it without fault. Our Founding Fathers wanted it this way (read Alexander Hamilton).

No need to read Hamilton. I've read much of the coverage in the news the past couple of days and know what faithless electors are.

You ignore my point: Clinton's lead of 0.5% is not compelling when 4.3% voted for a 3rd party candidate.

She did not get a majority of the votes cast, and it is very likely that Trump would have received a majority of the votes cast had 3rd party voters known that the election would be decided by popular vote rather than the electoral college.

The faithless electors would disenfranchise the 4 million voters who chose to deny Hillary a majority of the votes by voting for a 3rd party candidate. Without a majority of the popular votes, the electors don't have a leg to stand on. Denying Trump the presidency under these circumstances would be the first step on the road to civil war.

Anyway, Clinton has already conceded publicly. It's a moot point.

[Anonymous]

Why are you assuming the faithless electors will switch to Hillary? They won't - they can write in whomever they desire.
Hillary Clinton will not be President, I guarantee that. But it could possibly someone that is more palatable to the Never Trump faction. Congressional Democrats would be wise to settle on a unity candidate. Leave the hard right out in the dust for the good of the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, many of us voted with an understanding of the electoral college and chose to vote strategically.

I would never have voted for Hillary, but I live in DC, so a vote for Trump would have been "wasted." Instead, I voted for Johnson with the hope that he'd get 5% of the popular vote and secure $10 million for the Libertarian party in the next cycle. I'd like to have three viable candidates to choose from in the future.

Had I known that the election would be decided by popular vote rather then electoral college, I would have voted for Trump.

I am not alone. 3.3% of votes cast were cast for Johnson and 1.0% were cast for Stein, while Clinton is ahead by only 0.5:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2016/nov/08/us-election-2016-results-live-clinton-trump?view=map&type=presidential

Many, if not most, of the 4.3% of the voters who voted 3rd party did so because they understood the rules of electoral college. Had those voters known that the electoral college result would be ignored, they would probably have voted for a major party candidate, and many more would have voted for Trump than for Clinton since 3rd party voters are usually dissatisfied with the incumbent party..

Furthermore, we have not even considered the people who didn't bother to vote at all in solid red or solid blue states because they knew that their vote would not change the outcome in the electoral college. You might be able to argue that since they didn't bother to show up, they can't complain, but that would be a hard sell since you're changing the rules.

Apparently, most of the current "protestors" never even voted. How shocking!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are you assuming the faithless electors will switch to Hillary? They won't - they can write in whomever they desire.
Hillary Clinton will not be President, I guarantee that. But it could possibly someone that is more palatable to the Never Trump faction. Congressional Democrats would be wise to settle on a unity candidate. Leave the hard right out in the dust for the good of the country.

It's not going to happen.

The red states would promptly vote to leave the union. "Middle America" would become it's own country and would name Trump its president. "West America" and "East America" would probably not unite for logistical reasons. The landlocked blue states would probably join Middle America, and California would simply choose to become its own country. Virginia might even join Middle America despite voting for Clinton.

Trump supporters in East and West America and Clinton supporters who believe in electoral fairness would probably move to Middle America, causing significant shifts in the demographics of North America.

Why would the electors risk tearing the country apart by taking the presidency from the person who won and giving it to someone who wasn't even in the running? Trump is not Hitler.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, many of us voted with an understanding of the electoral college and chose to vote strategically.

I would never have voted for Hillary, but I live in DC, so a vote for Trump would have been "wasted." Instead, I voted for Johnson with the hope that he'd get 5% of the popular vote and secure $10 million for the Libertarian party in the next cycle. I'd like to have three viable candidates to choose from in the future.

Had I known that the election would be decided by popular vote rather then electoral college, I would have voted for Trump.

I am not alone. 3.3% of votes cast were cast for Johnson and 1.0% were cast for Stein, while Clinton is ahead by only 0.5:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2016/nov/08/us-election-2016-results-live-clinton-trump?view=map&type=presidential

Many, if not most, of the 4.3% of the voters who voted 3rd party did so because they understood the rules of electoral college. Had those voters known that the electoral college result would be ignored, they would probably have voted for a major party candidate, and many more would have voted for Trump than for Clinton since 3rd party voters are usually dissatisfied with the incumbent party..

Furthermore, we have not even considered the people who didn't bother to vote at all in solid red or solid blue states because they knew that their vote would not change the outcome in the electoral college. You might be able to argue that since they didn't bother to show up, they can't complain, but that would be a hard sell since you're changing the rules.

Apparently, most of the current "protestors" never even voted. How shocking!!

Where on Earth did you get this non-fact from? A Facebook meme?

[Anonymous]

NP here. I know it's Breitbart, but it seems legit.

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/11/14/report-majority-arrested-portland-anti-trump-protests-didnt-vote/

[Anonymous]

Unreal. Destroy the constitutional republic because you didn't get your way

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Faithless electors are not "changing the rules." This is actually a legitimate and legal quirk to our constitutional process for selecting a President. We, essentially, entrust our vote to these people, but they can override it without fault. Our Founding Fathers wanted it this way (read Alexander Hamilton).

No need to read Hamilton. I've read much of the coverage in the news the past couple of days and know what faithless electors are.

You ignore my point: Clinton's lead of 0.5% is not compelling when 4.3% voted for a 3rd party candidate.

She did not get a majority of the votes cast, and it is very likely that Trump would have received a majority of the votes cast had 3rd party voters known that the election would be decided by popular vote rather than the electoral college.

The faithless electors would disenfranchise the 4 million voters who chose to deny Hillary a majority of the votes by voting for a 3rd party candidate. Without a majority of the popular votes, the electors don't have a leg to stand on. Denying Trump the presidency under these circumstances would be the first step on the road to civil war.

Anyway, Clinton has already conceded publicly. It's a moot point.

Exactly right. This is decidedly not what Hamilton would have wanted -or meant

[Anonymous]

I'm a Hillary supporter and I don't think the electors should cast their votes for her. A republican won, a unifying republican would be ideal and would probably be ratified by congress. If the electors vote Hillary in it would cause a constitutional crisis, congress wouldn't ratify.

I think depending on how the Trump University trial goes at the end of the month could sway more electors away from Trump. Let's hope both party leaders can work together to suggest a choice everyone would support and work with.