Electoral College chooses the President

No, I would of course be chagrined that a sociopathic capitalist, sexist, and racist like Mr. Trump had won the popular vote, but I would not suddenly become an apologist for a presidential electoral system that I don't agree with.

 

He is none of what you described, you are emoting. Nothing more.

And you are also lying. You are a Hillary supporter so I'm sure that seems ok to you. But we all know you care nothing for democracy or rule of law. You just want your way.

Welcome to Trump's newer, stronger, better America. You are welcome here.

 

Yes, all hail the sociopathic capitalist fat cat/sexist/racist who will be the savior of America.

 

You're quite wrong. Actually, I'm not at all a fan of Mrs. Clinton; and I'm a Marxist not a Democrat; and, as I'm not a "Hillary supporter", I would actually be quite happy to see the members of the Electoral College elect a less vile Republican.

 

Again, he is none of those. You are projecting.

But you are welcome to Trump's bigger,, stringer, better America!

 

`
Well, suit yourself but the fact is, to get rid of the electoral college will take a constitutional amendment and in the meantime, the college is still the law of the land. The Electoral College

 

Do you realize what would happen in the country if enough electors tried to throw their votes to Hillary so she would become president?

 

Is this something new for you? It's always been done this way. BTW she may not have won the popular vote. I'm not sure that 100% of votes cast have been counted.

 

They don't have those options, legally.

- - - Updated - - -

Thankfully, we've never been an authentic democracy. We are a Republic, with democratic processes. A democracy degenerates into mob rule. A Republic governs by rule of law. For minority rights to be recognized, we have to have a Republic.

 

I voted against Trump, and I still support the EC, no matter the result. The only time historically that the EC has produced a different results than the popular vote is when the vote is extremely close. In that case, the candidate that can get the widest geographic diversity, rather than concentrated votes in urban areas, tends to win. As a libertarian friend of mine (who also voted against Trump) says, the EC is a firewall against corrupt electoral processes in isolated geographic areas.

- - - Updated - - -

It won't happen. In the past 100 years, only 10 electors have been faithless (voted against what their state chose) for President, and about 15 or so for Vice President. It's a moot point.

 

As I understand it, the electoral college was intended to be determined by a simple mathematical apportionment process. If the vote in the electoral college does not reflect the popular vote in each state (which must, mathematically, be the case in the end for the country overall), what we are left with is a breakdown in the mathematics - and tyranny. You cannot have voters voting one way and their electors voting another.

 

Actually, I agree with you. If they choose Clinton, we're stuck with it. As long as the electors are following the rules of their respective states, there's nothing we can do about it.

Fortunately, this is fantasy and will not happen. The good people of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and many other "blue wall" states decided Trump. I suspect their electors will do the right thing, which is to respect the citizens' votes.

 

If an elector votes for anyone other than the candidate that won his state, he goes against the will of the people.

 

The current post-election protests would be quickly forgotten and noted in future histories as a footnote, if at all.

 

But see you are wrong there. People in each state vote, and the electoral votes go to the person that gets the most votes, state by state.

 

Yes you must accept it.

 

Which would mean that the popular vote would always coincide with the electoral vote at least as far as who wins and loses, correct? Otherwise the math has to be off somewhere.

 

So you believe they should mkt vote the will of the people of thief respective states?

- - - Updated - - -

No, state by state we do not vote as one nation. You didn't learn that in civics class?

 

Then why are the anti-Trump people calling for that?

 

Understand this, as plainly as you can.

The People do not elect the Democratic Presidential candidate nominee.

The Democrat National Committee does.

 

LOL! Giving Hillary supporters false hope is just plain cruel:

 

GEEEEZ what are they teaching in school these days??? We are NOT an "authentic democracy " we are not a democracy at all and the founding fathers guarantied the states we would not be one. You win by winning the most states and their electors and each state decides how its electors will be choosen. Your state legislature could choosen them and who they will vote for if it so decided.

 

No.
The electoral college was intended as the means thru which the states elected the President.
Nothing the constitution requires that a state hold an election to determine who the electors vote for, and so any claim of "intent" by the framers regarding the popular vote in any way is unsupportable.

- - - Updated - - -

One candidate wins 50 states by 1 vote each. 535 EV
One candidate wins DC by 2,000,000 votes. 3 EV
535 EV wins. Why?

 

Sure but 99% have voted their party in the past and the only states that might change electoral votes are the massive lib states like California or New York so even if they did, it would not matter.

 

Here's more:

http://www.harpersbazaar.com/cultur...toral-college-vote-hillary-clinton-president/

OVER FOUR MILLION PEOPLE HAVE SIGNED A PETITION ASKING THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE TO VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON
The petition argues Donald Trump is "unfit to serve."
By Gina Mei
Nov 15, 2016
27.9k
Update, 11/15: The petition has accrued more than four million signatures. Read it—or sign it—here.

Original Post, 11/11: In fewer than 24 hours, an online petition asking the Electoral College to elect Hillary Clinton instead of Donald Trump for president of the United States has amassed over two million signatures.

"Mr. Trump is unfit to serve," the petition argues. "His scapegoating of so many Americans, and his impulsivity, bullying, lying, admitted history of sexual assault, and utter lack of experience make him a danger to the Republic."

"Secretary Clinton won the popular vote and should be president," it continues. "The only reason Trump 'won' is because of the Electoral College. But the Electoral College can actually give the White House to either candidate. So why not use this most undemocratic of our institutions to ensure a democratic result?"

As the petition explains, despite Clinton winning the popular vote on Tuesday, Trump was ultimately able to secure more electoral votes, thus making him the winner and 45th president-elect. But technically, the Electoral College doesn't vote until Dec. 19, and the electors have the power to choose Clinton instead of Trump — thus overturning the "results" of the election.

Specifically, those who have signed the petition are asking some electors to vote against their states in order to make Clinton the winner. But even if the petition reaches its goal of three million signatures, which it is definitely on track to do, it's still highly unlikely the Electoral College will vote Clinton into office.

Historically, 99 percent of electors in the Electoral College have "voted as pledged," and those who haven't have never actually made enough of a difference to sway an election. As the Independent Review Journal so eloquently explains it, "The last time an elector voted against his pledge was in 2004, when one elector voted for John Kerry's running mate, John Edwards, instead of Kerry. His vote, like the votes of every other faithless elector in American history, had no effect on the outcome of the election."

The other big reason why the Electoral College might decide not to vote against Trump is, perhaps, more obvious: In some states, it is illegal for an elector not to vote as pledged — but as critics of the petition argue, a fine pales in comparison to how Trump and his supporters might react if electors were to vote against him after he's already "won."

But the message the petition sends is nonetheless an important one, and further highlights just how many people are shocked, terrified, and angry about the results of this election. It is also an empowering reminder of the importance of democracy, and yet another reminder of how important it is to make your voice heard at the polls.

To read more about the petition or sign it, you can click here.

From: Cosmopolitan