Anonymous wrote:This does not happen. The people picked are loyalist. Also after one person gets 270, it's over.

I agree that they are party loyalists. But the gulf between the factions inside the Republican party is a massive chasm. If we were ever to see a wave of faithless electors, this IS that election.

This does not happen. The people picked are loyalist. Also after one person gets 270, it's over.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And this is a moot discussion as the results of the electoral college have to essentially be approved by Congress. A Republican Congress is not going to approve the results of the electoral college if the electors decide to do their own thing.

Very interesting, if true. Do you have a link?

Good grief, did you ever take a Civics class?

no, I majored in grievance studies. No civics classes for me

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And this is a moot discussion as the results of the electoral college have to essentially be approved by Congress. A Republican Congress is not going to approve the results of the electoral college if the electors decide to do their own thing.

The point of electors switching is that no candidate gets 270 votes. Then the decision MUST go to the House of Representatives for their vote and resolution. Ideally, enough Democratic and centrist Republicans in House could form a coalition to elect a moderate Republican for President.

It's definitely a hail mary pass, but the Cubs won the World Series. Anything is possible in 2016!

Again, civics... You are right that if no candidate wins in the electoral college, then the vote goes to the House. The vote then is done by state delegation. Each state only gets one vote, thus you now would need 26 states to support you. However, they can't vote on just anyone they please. They may only vote on the top 3 vote recipients in the electoral college.

Considering Republicans also control the majority of state delegations, I highly doubt they would defy a non-contested, democratic election which had already picked a candidate and choose some random third person chosen by a few defiant electors and not considered by the people at large.

Honest question: do the electors need to choose only between those on the ballot in their state (i.e., Trump, Clinton, Stein, and Johnson)? Or can they write in anyone of their choosing? It probably varies by state, but it's not clear to me.

The Vox article explains it well, "According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, about 30 of the 50 states have passed laws "binding" their electors to vote in accordance with the presidential popular vote in their state. But in most, the penalty for not doing so is only a fine, and it’s unclear whether stiffer penalties would hold up in court — it’s never been tested, and the Constitution does appear to give the electors the right to make the final call. Furthermore, there are still 20 or so states that haven’t even tried to bind their electors."

In theory, they can vote for anyone. In practice, the electors are chosen because they are loyal supporters of their respective party in their state. Thus it is highly unlikely and highly unusual not to vote for the party's candidate. That's why it has only happened a handful of times.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And this is a moot discussion as the results of the electoral college have to essentially be approved by Congress. A Republican Congress is not going to approve the results of the electoral college if the electors decide to do their own thing.

The point of electors switching is that no candidate gets 270 votes. Then the decision MUST go to the House of Representatives for their vote and resolution. Ideally, enough Democratic and centrist Republicans in House could form a coalition to elect a moderate Republican for President.

It's definitely a hail mary pass, but the Cubs won the World Series. Anything is possible in 2016!

Again, civics... You are right that if no candidate wins in the electoral college, then the vote goes to the House. The vote then is done by state delegation. Each state only gets one vote, thus you now would need 26 states to support you. However, they can't vote on just anyone they please. They may only vote on the top 3 vote recipients in the electoral college.

Considering Republicans also control the majority of state delegations, I highly doubt they would defy a non-contested, democratic election which had already picked a candidate and choose some random third person chosen by a few defiant electors and not considered by the people at large.

Honest question: do the electors need to choose only between those on the ballot in their state (i.e., Trump, Clinton, Stein, and Johnson)? Or can they write in anyone of their choosing? It probably varies by state, but it's not clear to me.

Moderate Dem here who voted for Hillary.

We need to respect the process in place, anything else would create a constitutional crisis and potential civil war.

Instead, let's hope moderate republicans join with the Dems to be vigilant on laws proposed and confirmation nomination hearings.

We are calling on the Electors to ignore their states' votes and cast their ballots for Secretary Clinton. Why?
So, I read the actual Change petition, and two things greatly bother me.

One, it reads, "We are calling on the Electors to ignore their states' votes". Umm, we live in a country of laws governed by the people and they are flat out asking the electors to ignore the will of the people?

And two, "Secretary Clinton WON THE POPULAR VOTE". Yes, she did win the popular vote. However, this is a straw man argument.

We don't know what the popular vote would have been had the rules of winning the election been one to win the popular vote. Both candidates played the system that was in effect when the election took place.

It would be like saying the Carolina Panthers should have won the Super Bowl because the game should have been decided by time of possession or number of first downs instead of points. Both teams knew the rules of what it took to win when they engaged in the game.

The same is true of the election. All this speculation about the popular vote is meaningless considering the President is not elected by popular vote.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And this is a moot discussion as the results of the electoral college have to essentially be approved by Congress. A Republican Congress is not going to approve the results of the electoral college if the electors decide to do their own thing.

The point of electors switching is that no candidate gets 270 votes. Then the decision MUST go to the House of Representatives for their vote and resolution. Ideally, enough Democratic and centrist Republicans in House could form a coalition to elect a moderate Republican for President.

It's definitely a hail mary pass, but the Cubs won the World Series. Anything is possible in 2016!

Again, civics... You are right that if no candidate wins in the electoral college, then the vote goes to the House. The vote then is done by state delegation. Each state only gets one vote, thus you now would need 26 states to support you. However, they can't vote on just anyone they please. They may only vote on the top 3 vote recipients in the electoral college.

Considering Republicans also control the majority of state delegations, I highly doubt they would defy a non-contested, democratic election which had already picked a candidate and choose some random third person chosen by a few defiant electors and not considered by the people at large.

Why has no one noted that Alexander Hamilton, subject of a hit musical, put the electoral college together? I say we boycott anything involving Ron Chernow and Lin-Manuel Miranda!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Did you see all the crybabies on election night? Some of them were sobbing into their hands and some of them were screaming and having meltdowns like toddlers. Liberals are so selfish. They can't take it that they lost. Even though they won the last two elections.

Cool story, bro!

Your over the top non-response tells me that you were/are one of the sad liberals who can't accept that your candidate lost. Wah.....

From Vox.com: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/11/13588048/electoral-college-petition-clinton-trump?0p19G=c

Furthermore, electors overturning Trump particularly would certainly cause a constitutional crisis, because there is no world in which the Republican Party — who, again, control Congress — would accept Clinton taking the presidency in this way. (Likely, as mentioned above, they’d refuse to recognize the returns.) And furthermore, when this sort of thing happens elsewhere in the world, it often creates a military crisis. (Hillary Clinton is not very popular among the military, so I’m not sure liberals want to make that play.)

Indeed, to be perfectly clear, this idea is essentially a call for destroying American democracy, at least so far as it relates to presidential election results, before Trump can even get the chance to do anything, without any clear idea of what would replace it. It is very, very unlikely to work out well.

You guys understand that flipping electors to select Hillary would almost certainly lead to a military intervention and possibly a civil war, right?

Ummm........the Electoral College is the law. Are you suggesting that HRC supporters do not accept the legal results of the election?

As for the number of illegals voting, it is quite possible that a couple of states may have been affected by it. I'm confident that it made the Virginia vote difference worse than it would have been. I doubt that
it made a difference in the Electoral College, but I think it quite likely that it affected the popular vote--particularly in California. Maybe, also in southwestern states, as well. It has been reported that there are lots and lots of non-citizens voting in Virginia. Probably, likely in Georgia, as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

JESUS F_ _ _ SHE DID NOT WIN THE POPULAR VOTE IF YOU TAKE OUT THE 15 MILLION ILLEGALS THAT WERE ALLOWED TO VOTE. THEIR VOTES SHOULD NOT COUNT

More importantly, she did not win a majority of the popular vote anyway.

Two stupid remarks. The illegals thing is just crazy delusional. The majority thing ignores the fact that for every other election in America, a majority is not required, merely a plurality of the votes cast. If a Senate candidate won 48% to 47% with 5% among 3rd party and independent voters, the 48% would win. I accept the electoral college victory of Trump, but don't lie about the popular vote.

I did not lie about the popular vote. I simply pointed out that she did not win a majority of the votes cast, so there is no "snowball's chance in hell of turning enough electors."

For the electoral college result to be ignored, she would need a majority in the popular vote at minimum. In fact, she would probably need something more like 55 to 60% of the popular vote. At that point, the electors might consider that the electoral college result did not reflect the will of the people.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but on what are you basing this statement?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And this is a moot discussion as the results of the electoral college have to essentially be approved by Congress. A Republican Congress is not going to approve the results of the electoral college if the electors decide to do their own thing.

Very interesting, if true. Do you have a link?

Good grief, did you ever take a Civics class?