No Riots today because of Electorate

[Velvet Revolver]

7 faithless electors - What a shame they are

Quote

a faithless elector is a member of the United States Electoral College who does not vote for the presidential or vice-presidential candidate for whom they had pledged to vote.

They should be fired LOL

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/19/politics/electoral-college-donald-trump-vote/index.html

 

Quote

(CNN)Donald Trump surpassed the necessary 270 votes in the Electoral College on Monday, taking the next step in the official process to become President.

Trump received 304 electoral votes to Hillary Clinton's 227. Seven "faithless" electors voted for other candidates, costing Trump two votes and Clinton four. Hawaii's votes -- three for Clinton and one breaking from the state's results and supporting Bernie Sanders -- were the last to be counted.

The results mean Trump -- who lost the popular vote by more than 2 percentage points to Clinton -- easily staved off a long-shot bid by opponents to turn Republican electors against him.

The Electoral College results will be officially certified January 6 during a joint session of Congress.

"This election represents a movement that millions of hard working men and women all across the country stood behind and made possible. With this historic step we can look forward to the bright future ahead. I will work hard to unite our country and be the president of all Americans. Together, we will make America great again," Trump said in a statement.

He also claimed his win was "a historic electoral landslide victory in our nation's democracy," though Clinton actually won the popular vote by about 3 million ballots nationwide making Trump the worst-performing winner in the popular vote since 1876.

Trump was put over the top by electors in Texas. Thirty-six of the state's 38 went for Trump, while two ignored the state's Election Day results. One voted for Ohio Gov. John Kasich and one backed former Texas Rep. Ron Paul.

The first response from Trump's camp came from Vice President-elect Mike Pence, who tweeted: "Congratulations to @RealDonaldTrump; officially elected President of the United States today by the Electoral College!"

Pence also wrote, "I'm honored & humbled to be officially elected today as the next Vice President of the United States of America by the Electoral College."

Congratulations to @RealDonaldTrump; officially elected President of the United States today by the Electoral College!

— Mike Pence (@mike_pence) December 19, 2016

I'm honored & humbled to be officially elected today as the next Vice President of the United States of America by the Electoral College.

— Mike Pence (@mike_pence) December 19, 2016

In Washington state, four electors opted for other candidates, instead of backing Hillary Clinton. Three cast ballots for former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and one backed Faith Spotted Eagle, a Native American activist who's been involved in the North Dakota pipeline fight.

Those Washington electors also picked a mixed bag for the vice presidency. One voted for home-state Sen. Maria Cantwell. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine each got votes, as well. And one went to activist Winona LaDuke, Ralph Nader's running mate as the 2000 Green Party nominee for vice president.

This is the first US presidential election since 1872 with more than one "faithless elector."

I'm honored & humbled to be officially elected today as the next Vice President of the United States of America by the Electoral College.

— Mike Pence (@mike_pence) December 19, 2016

Former President Bill Clinton cast his ballot for his wife as an elector in the state of New York.

"As an elector from my home state of New York, I've never been more proud to cast a vote than my vote today for @HillaryClinton," he tweeted.

As an elector from my home state of New York, I've never been more proud to cast a vote than my vote today for @HillaryClinton.

— Bill Clinton (@billclinton) December 20, 2016

When all the votes were counted in November, the President-elect won 306 electoral votes to Clinton's 232. Some have since called on electors to vote against their state results, after Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million ballots nationwide.

The 538 men and women voted primarily in accordance with the results from November in their state. The electors, chosen by state parties of the candidate who carried each state, convened in all 50 state capitals and the District of Columbia.

While electors are technically chosen to independently cast their ballots for president, both precedent and, in most cases, state laws require them to abide by the people's vote in each state.

After a fraught election, some have called on electors to vote against their state results.

In Minnesota, one elector was disqualified after declaring he would vote for someone other than his state's winner, Clinton. Under state law, he was replaced, and the alternate voted for Clinton.

Protests had popped up around the country Monday as frustrated Americans sought one last opportunity to stop the candidate they opposed.

From immigrant to elector: 'Living the American Dream'

But mass defections of electors was always extremely unlikely.

Thirty-seven of Trump's pledged 306 electors would have had to vote against him, becoming so-called "faithless electors," to keep him under the 270 threshold to become President. If Clinton were to reach 270 in that far-fetched scenario, she could have become President. If no candidate reached 270, the House of Representatives would have held a vote when Congress reconvenes in January.

There have been a handful faithless electors in past cycles, though never enough to change the outcome of the race.

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, whose state was won by Trump, tweeted a picture of the ballot for electors in his state. It featured a ballot for Trump as President and Mike Pence as vice president.

This is what an electoral college ballot looks like. pic.twitter.com/ZWsa7y8cEJ

— Jon Husted (@JonHusted) December 19, 2016

Elsewhere in the country, Americans protested near electoral voting sites in a last-ditch plea to stop Trump's election, despite the high unlikelihood of success.

Anti-Trump protesters have gathered outside House chambers prior to Electoral College voting. More later @WTHRcom pic.twitter.com/MSZM6JC99X

— Bruce Kopp (@BruceKopp13) December 19, 2016

Protestors in Raleigh are asking NC's 15 electors not to vote for @realDonaldTrump today. They cast ballots at noon pic.twitter.com/V0ywVtcCoJ

— Briana Conner (@BrianaReports) December 19, 2016

In Tallahassee, Florida, protestors began gathering before 10 a.m. outside of the Senate Chamber entrance on the fourth floor of the Florida State Capitol. Asked if he actually expected any outcome other than 29 votes for Trump, Democracy Spring's Maxwell Frost sighed. "I'm hoping for the best," he said. "We'll see what happens."

What happens in the extremely unlikely scenario the Electoral College goes rogue?

While Trump has claimed he won in a landslide victory, that description is inaccurate. He is expected to garner just 56.9% of the electoral vote, assuming all electors vote according to their states' results. That will give Trump the 44th-largest share of the electoral vote out of 54 presidential elections since the modern system started in 1804.

The electoral votes will be officially counted on January 6, when Congress returns. Vice President Joe Biden will preside over the count.

Lawmakers can technically object -- in writing, with objections signed by at least one House and one Senate member -- to individual electoral votes or entire states' results. If the House and Senate support that objection, the vote or votes in question are thrown out. But that has never happened.

Trump will be officially set for his inauguration at noon on January 20 once all the electoral votes are counted.

CNN's Kevin Conlon in Tallahassee contributed to this report.

 

[dalekphalm]

13 hours ago, Velvet Revolver said:

7 faithless electors - What a shame they are

They should be fired LOL

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/19/politics/electoral-college-donald-trump-vote/index.html

 

 

While I never expected there to be a "mass revolt" against Trump, the ones who did vote against their pledge should NOT be fired. The ability to vote against your pledge is a constitutional right, if I recall correctly. A few states have passed laws stating that their electors must respect their pledged vote, but if challenged in court, those laws likely wouldn't be upheld.

 

What America should do instead, is rally for electoral reform and change the system, if you're not happy with it.

[TidaLWaveZ]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

While I never expected there to be a "mass revolt" against Trump, the ones who did vote against their pledge should NOT be fired. The ability to vote against your pledge is a constitutional right, if I recall correctly. A few states have passed laws stating that their electors must respect their pledged vote, but if challenged in court, those laws likely wouldn't be upheld.

 

What America should do instead, is rally for electoral reform and change the system, if you're not happy with it.

 

I kind of look at the ability of the electors to make a faithless vote as one last gut check before a candidate is elect, providing yet another opportunity to keep a truly unfit candidate out of office.

 

That being said if my state voted unanimously for someone and my states electors went against that vote without damn good reason, I'd surely be pissed.

[Thunderpup]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

While I never expected there to be a "mass revolt" against Trump, the ones who did vote against their pledge should NOT be fired. The ability to vote against your pledge is a constitutional right, if I recall correctly. A few states have passed laws stating that their electors must respect their pledged vote, but if challenged in court, those laws likely wouldn't be upheld.

I concur with this in part.  Given the electors are typically decided and appointed by the political party that won the specific state, usually after the election but before the EC votes,  i don't see any issue with them getting fired for having voted faithless.

 

I do have an issue with firing them before they get a chance to vote faithless.  If you have qualms about someone's ability to do the job you should never have appointed them the position in the first place.  

 

Also While we're on the topic of things i have issues with.  I don't think a family member or spouse of a candidate should ever appointed to be an elector.  That doesn't sit right with me at all.

 

All that being said challenges to those state mandates have actually been upheld in court. There was one recently in colorado where the judge upheld the law.

 

42 minutes ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

 

I kind of look at the ability of the electors to make a faithless vote as one last gut check before a candidate is elect, providing yet another opportunity to keep an unfit candidate out of office.

 

That being said if my state voted unanimously for someone and my states electors went against that vote without damn good reason, I'd surely be pissed.

I have a similar view, but at the same time i was really hoping some of the electors of my state, which Hillary Won, would have voted for Sanders.  Not because i like sanders, which i don't, but because of the way the DNC stabbed him in the back in favor of Hillary; which she is likely to have been a party to. 

[Misanthrope]

It's time to switch sides: Republicans that usually attack the electoral collegue (Includying Trump) will now praise it and call for respect and Democrats who usually call to respect the results will say how we need to change the system.

[Velvet Revolver]

2 hours ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

That being said if my state voted unanimously for someone and my states electors went against that vote without damn good reason, I'd surely be pissed.

Yes, the electors of that area voted and the politician who is the electorate did not do fuck all for their electors.

[ThinkWithPortals]

17 hours ago, Velvet Revolver said:

7 faithless electors - What a shame they are

Opinions are allowed to change, are they not?

[christianled59]

I'm actually shocked that Hillary had more faithless electors than Trump, considering the outcry. (not shocked considering she is pretty corrupt and probably shouldn't have been nominated).

[Velvet Revolver]

We have a lawyer, We tell OUR lawyer we want Bob to be CEO. Lawyer then says no Jim will be the CEO, or lawyer says you will have no CEO.

 

We are the electors.

Our lawyer is the electoral college.

Bend US over, spread our butt cheeks, spit and throw some sand in there. Thanks electoral college.

[AlwaysFSX]

4 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

What America should do instead, is rally for electoral reform and change the system, if you're not happy with it.

I don't know if you know this but the electoral college is working exactly as intended.

[Velvet Revolver]

2 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

electoral college

Most are, a few are not. What a shame.

[AlwaysFSX]

12 minutes ago, Velvet Revolver said:

Most are, a few are not. What a shame.

[gcubed]

7 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

While I never expected there to be a "mass revolt" against Trump, the ones who did vote against their pledge should NOT be fired. The ability to vote against your pledge is a constitutional right, if I recall correctly. A few states have passed laws stating that their electors must respect their pledged vote, but if challenged in court, those laws likely wouldn't be upheld.

 

What America should do instead, is rally for electoral reform and change the system, if you're not happy with it.

 

Once their vote is certified by their state's Secretary of State, they are pretty much out of a job, anyway. In order for them to vote in an election again, they have to win another state election to become Elector.

[Velvet Revolver]

7 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

-

EEEEEeeeeeeeeeeew that is sick.

Now that is a BottleNeck.

 

7 electorates from the electoral college did not follow orders.

[AlwaysFSX]

3 minutes ago, Velvet Revolver said:

7 electorates from the electoral college did not follow orders.

Yes, and? You want to form a complete thought or no?

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, AlwaysFSX said:

I don't know if you know this but the electoral college is working exactly as intended.

I'm not sure if I follow your point.

 

I fully understand the Electoral College is working as intended. Just because it's working as intended does NOT mean it's a good system (Not debating it's value here, just saying), and furthermore, if someone doesn't like that system (Regardless of whether it works as intended or not), they should definitely press for electoral reform.

 

I believe my original comment still stands, unchanged, and your comment doesn't really seem to be relevant to it. Would you mind elaborating?

[Misanthrope]

Russia probably hack the protesters into staying home, those damn ruskies.

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I'm not sure if I follow your point.

 

I fully understand the Electoral College is working as intended. Just because it's working as intended does NOT mean it's a good system (Not debating it's value here, just saying), and furthermore, if someone doesn't like that system (Regardless of whether it works as intended or not), they should definitely press for electoral reform.

 

I believe my original comment still stands, unchanged, and your comment doesn't really seem to be relevant to it. Would you mind elaborating?

The problem is that neither side wants to call for change if they just benefited from it.

 

I somehow doubt Trump will say "Ok I won, but we gotta look at the system regardless". It would be a nice sign of ending the extreme divisiveness we see today if the winning side was more conciliatory and the losing side was less fucking childish (Russia!!!) but I see little political will on either side to meet in the middle of this bridge.

[dalekphalm]

4 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

The problem is that neither side wants to call for change if they just benefited from it.

 

I somehow doubt Trump will say "Ok I won, but we gotta look at the system regardless". It would be a nice sign of ending the extreme divisiveness we see today if the winning side was more conciliatory and the losing side was less fucking childish (Russia!!!) but I see little political will on either side to meet in the middle of this bridge.

Agreed - of course the winning side doesn't want to change it. Obama didn't push for Electoral Reform when he won, and Trump sure won't do it either.

 

But your average citizen - IF unsatisfied with the election results and/or the system in general - should push for it.

[Atmos]

6 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

While I never expected there to be a "mass revolt" against Trump, the ones who did vote against their pledge should NOT be fired. The ability to vote against your pledge is a constitutional right, if I recall correctly. A few states have passed laws stating that their electors must respect their pledged vote, but if challenged in court, those laws likely wouldn't be upheld.

 

What America should do instead, is rally for electoral reform and change the system, if you're not happy with it.

The electoral college system is a relic of a bygone era. It honestly needs to be thrown out the window. Honestly just remove the human aspect from electoral votes, and make them points assigned to a candidate when that candidate receives majority vote from that state. 

 

I have to disagree with you though. Faithless electors should absolutely be pursued. Electors when the system was devised were supposed to ensure that the public didn't elect someone entirely incompetent to office, or that the system wasn't abused; since at its inception the vast majority of voters had little to no understanding on politics. In today's America most everyone has at least a grasp of politics, and know exactly why they're voting for who they voted for. Electorates should have no say outside of the state they represent. Should they not be opposed when they become faithless and our entire system could fall apart. We could end up very easily in a very bad place, with those fewer than 1000 in a country of 360,000,000+ deciding who our leader shall be. 

[AlwaysFSX]

30 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I'm not sure if I follow your point.

 

I fully understand the Electoral College is working as intended. Just because it's working as intended does NOT mean it's a good system (Not debating it's value here, just saying), and furthermore, if someone doesn't like that system (Regardless of whether it works as intended or not), they should definitely press for electoral reform.

 

I believe my original comment still stands, unchanged, and your comment doesn't really seem to be relevant to it. Would you mind elaborating?

My point is that the people who created our government system knew leagues more than we do and we should allow it to work as intended, not change it. The system is fine, what needs to change is the people being run through it.

 

You have a problem with the people running the country? Change it. Raise your kids to have a greater respect for history and education, teach them to be kind and help out in your community.

 

Don't change what works, change how you work.

[gcubed]

4 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Agreed - of course the winning side doesn't want to change it. Obama didn't push for Electoral Reform when he won, and Trump sure won't do it either.

 

But your average citizen - IF unsatisfied with the election results and/or the system in general - should push for it.

 

People can pursue a change all they want, but the Constitution, while not immutable, is not easy to change. Ignoring for the moment the process required to propose an amendment, three quarters of the state legislatures must ratify the proposed amendment in order for it to become law. Basically, 38 states have to give it the thumbs up.

 

You also have to consider that the proposed amendment would need to address with what to replace our current system. Most people would say "popular vote", but it will need to be a little bit more detailed than that. What do people mean by "winning the popular vote"?

 

In a system that requires a majority to win, then this past election would have been thrown into the House of Representatives to determine the President and the Senate to determine the Vice President. Why? Because no candidate won a majority of the popular vote.

 

In a system that requires a plurality to win, then HRC would have won the last election, maybe.

Consider that a plurality type system would encourage a lot more political parties. It is conceivable that Bernie Sanders might not have tried for the Democratic party nomination but another party. So now we have a Republican nominee, Democrat nominee, Green nominee, Libertarian nominee and a Millennial nominee. That could conceivably given Trump the plurality. In extreme cases (like 11 parties in the mix), the President could get elected with less than 10% of the popular vote. I am fairly certain that something like that is extremely unlikely, but I wouldn't be surprised if "winners" regularly didn't exceed a third of the popular vote.

 

 

Basically, each point in the amendment will be debated to death, in almost every state. In today's political climate an amendment like this would never get enacted. Really, people would have a better chance of changing our system to select Presidents based on the results of one hand of Five Card Draw Poker. (Of course, who would we trust to shuffle and deal?).

 

[Ithanul]

When the electoral college came about, it was during a time that high speed communication was not around.  Only way news got from one place to another was by horse back.  Hence, the electoral college came to be.  The electors are the final say.  They original where the only say on the next President in the early days our Nation.

 

Want a balance true representative system.  How about the electoral college votes split base upon percentage of votes caste by voters?  Sucks if you voted for the other party that lost in State by 1% or 0.5%, yet the other party took all the electoral college votes for that State.

 

Plus, take in consideration that only 58% of the population voted.  This been dropping over the past few elections.  Then again, as citizen, no we do not vote direct.  Our electors do the voting base upon the Constitution which does not state anything against electors voting different from public opinion.  Actually, in the early days public votes did not affect the process.  That develop around Andrew Jackson's election.

 

So yes, bend over.  Seems a good chunk of the population been doing it for decades already.

 

Actually, to get very down into the original structure of the college vote.  There was not suppose to be a major candidate from the votes.  Instead a top list was to be built up from the votes cast, and the House of Representatives where to chose the next President.  In essence, our system was to be a Republic, not a Democracy.

 

A good read:  https://mises.org/library/origins-electoral-college

[GBELILREESE]

TRUMP 2016

 

 

WRONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

[RGProductions]

Definitely riots in Portland.