Petition to have the Electoral College override the election results gains over 2 million signatures.
A friend of mine sent me this link late last night to a Change.org Petition directed to the Electoral college.
Yeah, brilliant idea nimrods.
If you really want a "Blood in the Streets" revolution to kick off I can't think of a better way to get it rolling.
I could go on for hours about the stupidity of this approach and it's complete lack of chance of doing any good but instead I will just drop a piece of advice that those over at TOP gave us Bernie supporters over and over again after the primary.
"He She lost, get over it already..."
You should have an easier time following your own advice then we did my "Dear" Clintonistas.
After all, there is no evidence that your candidate lost due to rigging of the results, unlike Sanders, so the only thing you have to get over is the fact that in your stupidity you ignored all the advice given to you and all the data that pointed out that this wasn't just a possible outcome but a likely one.
So allow me to repeat it again for those of you in the shitty seats, "SHE FUCKING LOST! GET OVER IT!" (Only one letter added, otherwise this is a direct quote from over at TOP after the primary, one that was repeated ad nauseum.)
Comments
Agreed, This is a very bad idea.
This has Hilliam's fingerprints all over it.
One thing I will say, the Clintons are relentless. And you thought we had heard the last of them.
Speaking of can't we just drone him.......
Mary Bennett
Droning
Wasn't funny when Hillary said it, isn't funny now.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur.
Droning
Wasn't funny when Hillary said it, isn't funny now.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur.
BTW alphalop, a belated
thank you for the election night thread.
At least I didn't have to throw my empty bottle through the monitor screen during Herself's victory speech.
Mary Bennett
Thank you for joining us. I always have a lot of fun doing those
But despite how much I enjoy them, I really hope nothing worth doing a live blog for happens over the next 3 years...
I hear ya on the bottle thing. Mine may have joined yours in the recycle bin if Clinton had won.
The only victory we could possibly achieve that night was being proven correct, and that is only a victory if it makes them actually pay attention next time.
Something I am doubtful will ever happen.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
yes thank you Alphalop from this Canadian
It was difficult to find some non-Hillary blogs on election day and you made it fun to actually follow along.
I think of all of you as very brave and wonderful for starting the revolution on paper.
I was cheering for you but honestly never expected Trump to win. As one of your biggest trading partners Trump does scare me somewhat but not as much as Hillary. (Can't stand her since she insinuated the WTC terrorists came from here. ( I am "one of those" who believe it was allowed and maybe even helped along by bush cabal) Pissed me off greatly and we spent years trying to reverse that belief. Still many probably believe it)
I am lost regarding Electoral votes though. I thought they were voting on the day of election and ended up 228 for Clinton and 290 for Trump? Searched to find out what it's about but am still clueless how it works.
Thanks again for such a wonderful insightful site.
ETA Revolution on paper-the ones that were counted at least
Oops, I thought this was going to be about
getting rid the Electoral College completely
Now that I would sign.
"Love One Another" ~ George Harrison
Silver Lining
I think one of the outcomes of the electoral college exercising its power this way would be that it would lead to its elimination.
I was thinking the same thing, silver lining
Only with regard to Citizens United.
Seems to me the American people have wised up considerably with regards to big money driving our elections. IIRC, Romney spent millions more than Obama in 2012 and the people knew it. He lost.
It's clear who got the Billionaire largess. She lost.
Americans have learned to follow the money. It's a tel.
We know who our enemy is. The Billionaires. Where their money goes, we vote opposite.
The only way for them to counter is to give every candidate millions of dollars.
Fat chance.
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
You're so right.
This should disincentivise them. Or so you'd think.
MSNBC evening talking heads, who seem to have gone
totes starkers since Hillary conceded, are saying the dark money went to Trump, which may or may not be true. They are going to (snort) look into it and let us know.
Can you name one online petition that caused
the President, any Representative or any Senator to change his or her plans, vote, etc? I can't.
As for writing the electoral college out of the Constititution, red states love the electoral college and will never get rid of it.
Besides...http://caucus99percent.com/content/lets-amend-constitution
Since 1789 the electoral college vote was different from the popular vote very few times. It's just that Gore (maybe: sources differ) and Clinton were two out of the four that makes it seem so significant to us.
There is a solution that doesn't require an amendment to the
federal constitution.
What you do is, pass state laws that say, "100% of this state's electoral votes shall be given to the winner of the national popular vote -- but only when enough states have passed comparable laws to guarantee that the winner of the national vote will then win the majority of electoral votes."
There's a movement afoot to do this, I think such laws may even have been passed in a few states.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
I know. My prior post applied to that, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact Thanks to centrism, Citizens' United and several other things. Democrats have lost Governor's offices, state houses and local offices, as well as the Oval Office and House majorities. Democrats control about 15 states out of 50. I don't think red states will adopt the compact, any more than they would adopt a Constitutional amendment. Why would they? The electoral college got them Bush and Trump and, in their eyes, saved them from Gore and The Hillary.
Some states passed laws about how electors had to vote before that movement started, too. I imagine the larger political parties pressured states to pass them, but I don't know: State legislatures, being made up almost exclusively of Democrats and Republicans, would themselves want to pass laws that protect Democrats and Republicans every possible way.
I am extremely proud--proud, in a good sense and a not so nice sense, if I am brutally honest with myself -- to be a member of the left. However, the left does tend to go off half cocked and spend a lot of time and energy on stuff that ultimately does not accomplish or change a thing. I guess because we're desperate. If one realizes that things like that may not take hold for half a century or more, if ever, it's fine, I guess. But the left always seems to be looking to the next Presidential election, two at most. The abolitionists, many of them wealthy and/or clergy, had worked since the 1600s before electing Lincoln and that still took the then new Republican Party a few years. I wish we'd get a grip and be more practical. But, when I say or post things like that, I get called names.
Even without state laws, though, almost every single elector voted with the majority in his or state states. Why? I think people select electors carefully and also, after the electors vote, electors tend to want to come back to their home state. An elector who overrode the votes of a majority of people in his or her state would probably start getting death threats or worse about ten minutes after the betrayal hit the news. The message machine would be overflowing while they were still traveling home.
Candidates would never visit rural/suburban areas
just large urban centers.
Is that really what you want?
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
Snark right?
If not, what do you think they do now? They have 6 swing states top that they visit and usually in large urban centers. This would at least have them go to other states. I'm in Ohio and I'm sick of being one of the critical states that pick the president. My vote seems to be more valuable than votes in Texas or California. It shouldn't be that way. I like the way Jimmy Dore explains it.
Democrats go to blue states to raise money, not to hear
what Democratic want from the federal government. They know they don't have to keep any promises if elected, anyway. They can also make some excuse, with "Congress" being the chief rationalization.
When they come, they tie up traffic from the airport to the venue, preach to the choir, bask in the adoration of their fellow Democrats, collect checks and then tie up traffic again on their way out. Republicans do the mirror version of that in red states. Meanwhile, city taxpayers foot the bill for extra security, extra traffic control.
Both work somewhat harder in the purple states, and even then, Republican don't go to hear Obama or Hillary campaign and Democrats don't go to hear Trump. Both may go to disrupt, though. If so, that, too, increases costs to local taxpayers, not to mention increasing danger. And that's all without the the federal bill for Secret Service and the like.
I'm content seeing them on TV (much more than I wish, given the ads).
Besides, is having a celebrity politician visit really worth undermining the concept of "one man, one vote?" It's all moot anyway, because it's not changing in our lifetimes, but nothing about representation based upon lines on a map is fair, not in the Senate and not the electoral college. Elected representatives should represent human beings, not lines on a map.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4CRkpBGQzU]
I got one, today, and signed-
then deleted. I'm so sorry, I should've thought to save, so I could post a link.
Damnit, Janet.
(I think it was MoveOn, though, so maybe you can pull it up on a search)
mine came from TurnoutPAC.org /nt
Nimrods indeed
1] A constitutional amendment is required to make it in any way legal, aint goin happen in my lifetime.
2] she won a plurality not over 50% of the vote last count shows her 0.5% in front of Trump.
Could they please give it a rest.
I don't think the US Constitution says how electors can
(or must) vote. Some state constitutions may; I don't know.
I beleive the state of Michigan requires electors
to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledges.
Ah, the Electoral College! That institution looks back at me with the same musty patina of the Immerwaehrender Reichstag deutscher Nation, with its seating arrangements all neatly labelled in woodcuttings, and a Thurn-und-Taxis man pro tempore the Kaiser, and the little back room where the Kurfuersten (Electors) did their thing.
Really, wrap it in a bow and place it below the orphans' Christmas tree.
This electoral college holds that same calming, even hypnotic effect, like the glint of the metal insignia in the spotlight on the uniform of the man who is my executioner.
Peace and love be with you, reader.
Not the US Constitution, though. A number of states, maybe
even all of them, say something about it. Plus, the hatred of faithless electors presents a safety hazard as a practical matter.
Murky because it also involves State rights + addition
http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php
Also
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html
It isn't murky and there is no states rights issue.
Your earlier post said the US Constitution would have to be amended in order to allow electors to vote for Hillary, but that is not so. No Constitutional amendment would be required to allow electors to vote for Hillary because the COTUS says nothing about who electors can or must vote for.
The Constitution as it is was adopted in 1789 took care of any possible the states' right issue by leaving all regulation of voting up to the states, making no attempt to assert federal power over regulating voting. It does not even specify that every state must give every US citizen a right to vote.
Since the 1789 version of the constitution already leaves regulation of voting up to the several states, there is no federal level states rights issue involved that would require a Constitutional amendment. As I said in my earlier post, some state laws, even some state constitutions may have something to say on the subject of who electors vote for. I don't know anything about, but the US Constitution does not require amending to allow electors to vote for Hillary.
"Faithless" electors have voted other than the way a majority of voters in their state went and their votes have been counted. That would not have happened if their votes violated the Constitution. Electors who band together to flat out flip an election might have to leave the country forever for their own safety, but that is a totally different issue.
Your first link, which is to the history of the electoral college provision of the Constitution, does not seem to affect anything in this post or in my prior post. It simply says that the Framers considered states rights when they wrote the Constitution as it read in 1789. The material quoted in your post says that many people want to amend the Constitution to abolish or change the electoral college. As I am sure you know, a desire to amend the Constitution has nothing to do with whether the Constitution today would allow an elector from a state that went for Trump to vote for Hillary in the electoral college.
Then why introduce constitutional amendments
http://billmoyers.com/story/electoral-college-explained/
Any attempt to play with the results will end up before SCOTUS
My prior posts covered that, but I will repeat:
Wanting to amend the Constitution to change or eliminate the electoral college has nothing to do with how an elector can or must vote. Those are two very different issues. And state law governs. Since state law governs, there is no states' rights issue under the federal Constitution.
If there is no state law or other state restriction about how an elector must vote, electors vote as they wish, but they may be risking their own physical safety if they flip an election. If repeating all that does not answer your question, please re-phrase it more specifically because we seem to be going in circles.
Better yet: if you really think the US Constitution has to be amended to allow an elector from a state that went for Trump to vote for Hillary, please quote the provision of the US Constitution that you believe forbids that or says anything at all about how an elector must vote.
BTW, a Constitutional amendment on anything is highly unlikely, but changing or eliminating the electoral college is especially unlikely. Red states with comparatively low populations just love them some electoral college. http://caucus99percent.com/content/lets-amend-constitution
Eliminating the electoral college would, of course, require a
Constitutional amendment, which is what your quotes show Jesse Jackson wants. The National Popular vote is trying to make the popular vote winner the President Elect, which is a different way of "eliminating" the electoral college without really eliminating it. While it's smart, the less populous red states who get more power from the electoral college will never agree.
Some state laws and/or constitutions may, however, require an elector to vote the way the state votes. What Hillary is asking might violate laws like those if Trump states have them. A federal elections statute would override state law but states might well object and that would end up in court. But, there is no such statute. So right now, it's up to state law and I doubt Trump states would go along. There is no reason for them to go along and their citizens might riot.
Not sure that's what they're trying.
Last night, O'Donnell was using Hamilton to argue for faithless electors. He said Hamilton always intended that electors exercise their own independent judgment. O'Donnell called the idea that electors follow the voters' wishes the same as "robot electors" and said it was--get this--anti-democratic.
Maddow is whipping up the "traitor" scenario that's now an article of faith at TOP.
These people are nuts.
The shameless unprincipled maddow
invoked the cuban missile crisis as a warning of a potential doomsday scenario with trump. She is out of her mind; her self-regard has deprived her of all perspective. The sooner she is relegated to the heap, the better.
I am glad to see you here.
In giving in to the schadenfreude urge, I was looking around DK threads yesterday and saw your username a couple of times. I hadn't seen you over here and was thinking to myself, "I miss that guy."
aw, shucks
thanks. I popped in there to see if reason had smacked any of them upside the head after tuesday. Nope.
While LOD was speaking about robotic electors, did he say
anything about state law, or was he completely irresponsible in encouraging electors to ignore the popular vote? Some state laws require electors to be "robotic"
I could not agree more. http://caucus99percent.com/content/msnbcs-self-styled-liberals-sounding-...
He was going on and on about Hamilton's vision...
for the EC. Tucked in there was some note about Hamiliton's attitude toward democracy, but the whole riff was grounded in Hamilton's elitist EC concept.
IOW, completely irresponsible, encouraging breaking laws without
even mentioning that the laws may exist. Hillary supporters are starting gofundme accounts to pay the fines state law imposes on "faithless electors."
If this crap had been done in 2008, Democrat would have been screaming treasonous and racist.
And what happens the next time a Democrat gets elected President and Republicans think this kind of crap is a good idea? What will LOD say then? Meanwhile, while they encourage rioting and lawbreaking, they can't stop saying "peaceful transition.
This is all batshot nuts and disgusting, IMO.
The shameless unprincipled maddow
invoked the cuban missile crisis as a warning of a potential doomsday scenario with trump. She is out of her mind; her self-regard has deprived her of all perspective. The sooner she is relegated to the heap, the better.
A talked about way to fix the problem
Would be for the legislatures and governors from only a few big states to pass state constitutional amendments saying that their state will assign all of it's electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote. I remember reading that it requires only a few state legislatures to sign on, say California, New York and Texas and a few smaller ones, for the electoral college to be completely overridden by the popular vote.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Didn't Martin O'Malley sign this in MD?
This story from 2007 sounds like it:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18053715/ns/politics/t/maryland-sidesteps-elec...
When you say she did not win a plurality of the vote
Over 50% what does that mean? That less than 50% of the electorate voted for her?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
I understood less than 50% of those who voted
Each candidate got maybe 25% of the electorate. Don't hold me to that number could be 30%, I have not looked up the numbers on people entitled to vote or registered.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur.
Call it 27%
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
Plurality as contrasted with majority vote
Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote. To do that, she would have had to get over 50% of the total votes cast, and she did not. She received slightly more votes than any other candidate did, but did not reach 50%; that is called a plurality.
When we reform the electoral process and consider doing away with the Electoral College, I believe we need to keep this in mind. Are we going to give the presidency to someone who wins only by plurality? Or are we going to require them to win a majority? If no candidate reaches +50%, a run-off between the top two would be required. Or, in lieu of runoffs, we could do what the state of Maine just did (as a result of the LePage fiasco), and adopt a Ranked Choice Voting system for federal elections.
In any event, this shows why we really, really need to get beyond this duopoly (Repubs vs Dems, and no other viable party allowed) that has a stranglehold on our political system.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
Reeks of desparation...
The Electoral College is a dinosaur that isn't yet extinct. I can see it's usefulness when it was conceived and incorporated into the Constitution but as it is today, there is just no need for it whatsoever. If it must remain for some silly sense of tradition, then it must be rechartered to require vote compliance in complete alliance with the popular vote, state by state. Any discrepancy between the EC vote and the popular electorate should recognize the popular electoral vote as the ruling decision.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
The Electoral College protects the center of the country
from the coasts. If there was no electoral college, Hillary Clinton would be President. For all it's faults, the EC requires a candidate to have widespread support, not just New York and California imposing their will on the rest of us and ignoring our needs.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
I can see that argument applying to the Senate,
but not the Presidency. The Presidency is a national office and should therefore be chosen by a majority of the Nation.
Beware the bullshit factories.
The President would be picked by people in NY & LA
Cause those are the 2 markets candidates would visit.
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
Agree with your thoughts here and upthread...
The densely populated cities would trump the rural states every time. The political needs of the cities would then be met by the election, whereas the political issues of the rural or spread out areas would be completely forgotten. It would be a different formula of the 1% ruling the 99%!!
I agree with you that strict popular vote count would skew things in a bad way.
I too got that survey, but it looked too much like Clinton propaganda and sour grapes so I didn't respond. She is looking for a way to save face.
Not during the primaries
I think that's one benefit of having a lot of smaller primary states go first. We're theoretically electing someone to represent all of us (lol). I'm voting for President as an American, not a Californian. I should have an equal voice with all other Americans.
Beware the bullshit factories.
It protects lines on a map, not people.
The President is President of the people, not of a map of the US. A majority of people should elect the President. I'm thrilled Hillary is not President, but a majority of people should choose the President of the people, even if it's Hillary. It's not as though the center of the country does not have representation in House and Senate. It has both.
This has happened only four times in US history, one of which was a SCOTUS decision, so it is not as huge a problem as it seems--unless your candidate was one of the four. Clinton/Gore fans represent half the times this has happened in US history.
However, the whole discussion is moot because the red states are never going to agree to abolish the electoral college. In fact, in all likelihood, the Constitution is not getting amended in our lifetimes for any significant reason, period. http://caucus99percent.com/content/lets-amend-constitution
You mean the majority on the coasts
And forget the middle. Now you know why the reliable Midwest voted for Trump.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Nope. The middle lines on the map are over represented in
federal government in comparison to the number of human beings. That would be both in the US Senate, which is more powerful than the House, and in the electoral college (and therefore the Oval Office). Conversely, human beings in populous states have been underrepresented since before there were any states at all, only colonies. Also, people in the middle states vote for President too, so the popular vote would finally give them a voice at the Presidential level, though they still would not have any at the Senate level.
Sorry, but, any way you slice it,going by state rather than by people is about lines on a map, and you have not once said otherwise. You only repeat "middle" which is about location on a map, not about human beings.
Of course, the original purpose of the electoral college was never to protect real estate in the huge middle states anyway. It was about protecting the smaller colonies on the east coast, like Rhode Island, and the slave states, which had lots of population, but slaves could not vote. Small colonies could not possibly grow their populations to compete with a state like NY, without overflowing their borders. Just the opposite of the "middle" states. However, the real issue for me is not original intent but people vs. lines on a map that got there pretty much arbitrarily.
The original vote on revolution and on the constitution was one vote per colony, so the smaller colonies and slave colonies held both the revolution and the Constitution things hostage until they got over protected in comparison to the number of people in them. Therefore, we got stuck with unfairness to people and over protection of lines on a map from the off. Of course, it didn't matter as much then as it does now, because only about 6% of the population was legally entitled to vote and state legislators or electors decided everything but the House. So the popular vote didn't mean as much. And didn't get debated then as much as it would have if everything had been decided by popular vote then.
However, again, in practical reality, it's not going to change, so the "middle' will continue to be vastly over-represented in both the Senate and the Oval Office, in comparison to the number of human being who live in them. But nothing about that is justifiable on the grounds of fairness or protecting people. One person one vote protects people.
That makes little sense
as there was virtually no 'center of the country' when the EC was incorporated into the constitution.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
I have read that it was more of a,'Southern strategy'
to skew in favor of slave owning states.
ETA. Did a quick google:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/electoral-college-slavery-constitution/
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur.
Nice find...
It certainly has a ring of truth to it, especially when reflecting on Jefferson and Adams -- practically enemies at the time. Additionally, the south had fewer white property owners; a requirement for voting.
Without aiding myself in any actual research, I drew my conclusions as to it's necessity being driven by lack of modern communications and travel as well as a way to organize vote counts and provide remedy when it was clear that election fraud was in play -- more rampant then than now (maybe) when votes were bought with booze, etc, etc.. Not much remedy though when an EC member can be bought or otherwise influenced as well.
I think it needs to go. We have all the tools to do it; just add political will.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
Yep. Slave colonies, but also tiny colonies.
http://caucus99percent.com/comment/209506#comment-209506
The Clinton-istas are freaked out.
We have a crappy way of electing an executive. Stuck in 1798. Remember what you were taught in grade school? It was all a lie, we have seen, but we have this big roadblock called Congress and then the bigger one of state houses. Remember, no ERA?
Maybe we can capture that crowd to push for a new Constitution. Ripe time.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Do you mean 1789?
As far as amendments to the Constitution--and replacing it would be the mother of all Constitutional amendments...
http://caucus99percent.com/content/lets-amend-constitution
The Electoral College Is Always with Us
I don't like the EC myself, but I don't think it will be abolished anytime soon.
Remember, the reason for the EC is not only to insulate the populace from the pinnacle of power, but it also represents a big state/small state, urban center/rural farmland compromise.
You need 3/4 of the states to change the Constitution, but more than 1/4 of the states benefit from the EC in terms of political clout. Who would vote their own power away?
Yep Red states love disproportionate stuff, just as did the
colonists in small colonies and slave colonies who stuck us with this unfairness. http://caucus99percent.com/comment/209506#comment-209506
Why, why, why do I keep seeing "The Young Ones"
Whenever I think about the political parties in this country?
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLwc9lbJlIQ]
Oh... right...
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Loved that show
RIP Rik Mayall....
Hillary bought the superdelegates but she won't be able to buy
the Electors of the EC.
The people at Change.org have lost their minds. So have the 2 million people who signed that sorry ass petition.
Half a million?
The penalty in Washington for being a faithless elector is $1000. At that price, you could free the whole lot of them for $538,000. Herself has that much under the pile of sushi boxes on the floor of her limo.
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
Back when Hill still had this in the bag
wasn't there some widespread panty bunching over the thought that one of the electors wouldn't go for her? They really wanted that guys head.
What a difference a few days make.
They say that there's a broken light for every heart on Broadway
They say that life's a game and then they take the board away
They give you masks and costumes and an outline of the story
And leave you all to improvise their vicious cabaret-- A. Moore
They are setting up Go Fund Me accounts.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
I thought the idea of Trump refusing to accept the results
was threatening to rip apart the fabric of the nation? I heard commentators say so. I guess this is just one more rule that applies to everyone else but the Clintons. This movement idiotically re-inforces every single entitlement meme about HRC. She should come out and say something about she has accepted the outcome of the election and she encourages her followers to as well.
If the Dems have some evidence or proof of election chicanery than let them produce it; simply losing according to the rules in place doesn't cut it.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
If they're crazy enough to follow through with this,
my guess is that they won't make any claim to legitimacy under the Constitutionally defined electoral system. It seems we're being prepared for a "Trump is a traitor and Russian agent" coup of some sort. Then a war against Russia would seem obligatory, no?
Is there a rumbling among the Elite Class? Has power driven them completely mad?
Oops.
Trump said he did not know if he would accept results IF
it seemed the election was rigged. Nor should he accept them under those circumstances. Billions of dollars and thousands of hours are spent on a Presidential. It's not all about The Hillary and The Donald. The whole country deserves a fair election, but specially all Trump's workers, volunteers and donors and the people who got off their bottoms and went to the polls and voted for him. Even the people who got paid may have left good jobs or made other sacrifices to work for him. Gore contested the results. Remind me who on the left had a problem with that? All I ever heard from the left was the Kerry should have contested, too.
Kossaks mocked Berners for not knowing/following the rules
Kharma is a bitch, no?
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
And one other thing...
They really need to stop making up fake hate crimes.
At least 2 that have gotten widespread national attention have already been proven to be false charges and the accusers charged with false reporting.
It doesn't help the case at ALL for the real victims when they do happen.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Wow! Amazingly stupid move. I was wondering where Brock
slithered off to.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
Probably the most likely way to get to a national popular vote, but still unlikely to happen.
The EC acts as an amplifier for the underlying vote. A modest majority in the popular vote can translate to an EC landslide. Only when the national popular vote is extremely close can it be a factor. Solution? Run a candidate with charisma and a populist platform and then deliver on it once in office. Close elections will be a thing of the past.
Of course, if your party is run by people who consider 50% +1 to be a mandate, you'll get two inverted results in a generation.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Albert Bartlett
"A species that is hurtling toward extinction has no business promoting slow incremental change." -- Caitlin Johnstone
simple question: would they be ok if Hills had won and...
the Trump people wanted the electoral college to vote the other way?
We know the answer to that but I don't think the point would get through to them.
I assume, though, that this is a fringe thing and not taken seriously by the Clinton team.
I'll just quote them back at themselves:
"Har har har, them's the rules (s)he agreed to when (s)he ran. Suck it up, sore losers."
Honestly, are they trying to provoke a civil war? Because I don't see a single Trump supporter rolling over for this.
"When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained." - Mark Twain
The question that isn't being asked...
Would the MIC make more money from a civil war?
Sadly, in this case, I think the answer is...
...yes...
Rebuilding contracts, arms sales, inflated prices on food and other necessities, all of which would be rendered valuable...
I can practically hear them drooling.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
It has worked pretty well
in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Well, they tried to provoke demonstrations and they succeeded.
So, we never know what they want.
In many ways election night was a pyrrhic victory...
Clinton and her cabal got a taste of their own medicine, and I didn't think they would learn anything from it, but I am still floored by the lack of self-awareness shown here. It wasn't two days ago Tim Kaine was snubbing Trump for claiming the election might be rigged while introducing Hillary as someone who would've never sought to overturn the results, and now here we are, millions clamoring for precisely that.
"The voice of passion is better than the voice of reason. The passionless cannot change history." ~ Czesław Miłosz
And remember how Texans were mocked
for threatening secession because Obama hot elected? I've heard about talks of Calexit.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur.
Not only did they tell us to get over it, but when we suggested
that Bern perfectly legally ask the supers to vote for him as the better candidate despite Clinton winning more states, they told us we were undemocratic or anti-democratic. Remember?
Funny how everything changes when the shoe is on the other foot.
I'm fine with getting rid of the EC for the future, but can't do it this election. He was elected by the current rules. It's done.
OTOH, if they do change the rules for next time, she may feel like she has a chance to run again in 2020. Please Lord no.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
There's already talk of
running Chelsea for Congress in 2018. And running Tim Kaine for President in 2020.
The depth of oblivious denial is astounding; it's really next-level shit.
"When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained." - Mark Twain
Wow. If they keep that up, it will definitely be easier to grow
a successful third party.
Srsly, is there some advantage to losing election after election?
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
I saw this on Reddit the other day and it sums up my feelings
about all of these protests and petitions pretty well.
The EC could help a little, maybe?
If they appointed a Republican instead of Donald. I mean, I think he himself hinted he had limited interest in some parts of the job. I accept the Republican sweep, but do we have to accept an emotionally challenged figurehead? Even the Republicans can't manipulate him reliably. They took away his twitter access for a reason. How about access to the nuclear codes? Why not appoint someone else, like Pence, since he was at least on the ticket and is already second in line. I am just trying to limit the damage here. I imagine there are a good number of Republicans who would go for this. I have no illusions Pence is different in many ways, but I will accept tiny steps to secure those nuclear codes at this point. I am grasping for straws at this point.
"If we all threw our problems in a pile and saw everyone else's, we'd grab ours back" - Regina Brett
Yes, we have to accept an emotionally challenged
figurehead.
Because that's who won.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
This is why I saved what mojo I had:
Thanks for the righteous inspiration, Alphalop.
My partner just reminded me of the outrage "over there" when Bernie tried to reach out to the super-delegates.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Damn, that was some tightly focused sniper fire. :)
That ought to get them thinking...
LOL! I almost said that with a straight face!
They were, are and always will be a bunch of shameless hypocrites.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
it's more than a little tragic that after the past 16 years'
worth of appalling assaults on democratic institutions, this is what gets people rioting. (Even if much of it is astroturfed, the tragedy is there. They sat blandly blinking their great and soulless amphibian eyes while the Republicans gerrymandered away the state legislatures and the house of reps, but now they're going to riot because they don't like the way their fellow citizens actually voted? Pfft.)
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Pages