Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Petition for the Electoral College to Elect Hillary Clinton on December 19

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Petition for the Electoral College to Elect Hillary Clinton on December 19

    Please share this with everyone you know who would be interested!

    First my stepsister shared with us a petition to abolish the Electoral College, and now even better: Petition for the Electoral College to Elect Hillary Clinton on December 19. This was linked on my professor, Nnedi Okorafor's, Twitter: https://www.change.org/p/electoral-c...on-december-19

    I hadn't known this, but there's no legal way of stopping Electoral College members from voting against the majority of their State. They just have to pay a small fine, which would be well worth it.

  • #2
    The Electoral College exists for a reason. Butthurt due to not getting your way is not sufficient reason to get rid of the manner in which we elect our Presidents.

    If you are dissatisfied, you would be better served by getting more (legal) votes for your preferred candidate next time.

    Otherwise, no matter who wins, the losers will just try to change the rules to suit them until they "win".

    But since only 4 States still have the Democrat party in control of both the legislature and as the governor, such petitions are unlikely to pass. Which is a good thing, as it's a bad idea to simply hand NYC, L.A., and Chicago that much sway over national politics. The tyranny of the mob is still tyranny.

    Why, it's almost as if our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.

    Comment


    • #3
      If 63 million votes isn't swaying the electoral college I sincerely doubt that 4 million signatures will.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Azenogoth View Post
        The Electoral College exists for a reason. Butthurt due to not getting your way is not sufficient reason to get rid of the manner in which we elect our Presidents.

        Why, it's almost as if our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.
        Again though, the Constitutional Framers didn't design the Electoral College with a system in place to force electors to vote the way their state voted. They decided they wanted to leave it up to the electors to vote however they wanted, even if it meant going against the way the people of their state voted. This is because the Constitutional Framers wanted to ensure that the electors in the Electoral College could vote for a different candidate in the event that a demagogue who threatened the well-being of the country ended up in a position where he could be elected president.

        So if the electors in the Electoral College do decide to vote against Trump because they believe he poses a threat to America, guess what? That's the Electoral College working exactly as the Constitutional Framers intended for it to work.

        That said, I think in this case it's pretty much a lost cause - Trump is already softening on a lot of issues, many Americans are already coming around to Trump and any elector who went against the voters at this point would probably find themself out a job for a long time.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Caitiff Primogen View Post
          If 63 million votes isn't swaying the electoral college I sincerely doubt that 4 million signatures will.
          Signatures that serve as a direct reminder of those 63 million votes and of the powers of the electors.

          Originally posted by AnubisXy
          That said, I think in this case it's pretty much a lost cause - Trump is already softening on a lot of issues, many Americans are already coming around to Trump and any elector who went against the voters at this point would probably find themself out a job for a long time.
          I've seen little evidence of this softening beyond a few insincere statements that are contradicted by other offensive things he is still saying (witness his butthurt over the Hamilton cast's perfectly respectful address to Pence) and plans people in his chosen administration are still making, and wouldn't trust that idea one bit. He's still employing white supremacists, and white supremacists are still taking his election as a rallying point and an excuse to harass minorities, other religions and foreign-born people, including on my campus. His vice presidential running mate is still a man who's advocated diverting money from legitimate government programs to gay/trans conversion therapy and said that the movie Mulan is bad because it encourages women to join the military.

          No one I know is coming around to Trump, and anyone who is is gullible. Nor do I think it would be dire for the electors who elected Hillary once things calmed down. But people are trying a number of strategies right now, including Democratic electors reaching out to Republican ones with a proposal that members of both parties vote for a more moderate Republican instead, because they realize a Trump presidency would be a disaster (not to mention an international laughingstock; he's not even an actual politician). He doesn't like real work, and he can't help himself from responding crassly to even a hint of criticism or mockery, which anyone becoming president is going to encounter for four years. If I can do anything to encourage the electors to instate Hillary, an actual politician with decades of experience, instead, I will.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Noneofyourbusiness View Post

            Signatures that serve as a direct reminder of those 63 million votes and of the powers of the electors.
            Except they're not, really. All it really represents is about 7 percent of the people who voted for Clinton (its pretty safe to assume that everyone signing this voted for Clinton) saying "No really though, Clinton." To which the electors already voting for Clinton respond "Yeah we heard you the first time, we're doing that already." and the electors voting for Trump say "None of you voted for us, so why are we listening to you?"

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Noneofyourbusiness View Post
              I've seen little evidence of this softening beyond a few insincere statements that are contradicted by other offensive things he is still saying (witness his butthurt over the Hamilton cast's perfectly respectful address to Pence) and plans people in his chosen administration are still making, and wouldn't trust that idea one bit. He's still employing white supremacists, and white supremacists are still taking his election as a rallying point and an excuse to harass minorities, other religions and foreign-born people, including on my campus. His vice presidential running mate is still a man who's advocated diverting money from legitimate government programs to gay/trans conversion therapy and said that the movie Mulan is bad because it encourages women to join the military.

              No one I know is coming around to Trump, and anyone who is is gullible.
              Well, I mean, Trump's numbers have generally been improving - an admittedly slim majority of Americans (but a majority nevertheless) are now saying they think he'll do a good job as president, though Democrats of course are opposed to him well beyond the opposition that Obama experienced from conservatives when he was nominated. Even if the American public is split down the middle on Trump, by and large it looks like it has generally started to come around to the idea of a Trump presidency, even if specific individuals in specific areas are still highly opposed.

              Plus, when you back that up with various statements coming out of Trump today with the New York Times, such as saying he does in fact believe climate change is linked with human actions, that he wasn't interested in going to go after Hillary, that he rejected and condemned white supremacists, etc, I think that will help make him look like his stances are softening and make him a bit more appealing to moderates.

              Of course hardcore liberals will spend the next 4 years rejecting the idea of Trump's election and will never come around to accepting him as their president, just like hardcore conservatives spent 8 years rejecting the idea of Obama's election and never came around to accepting him as their president. But I think that for the most part, most Americans (even those who don't like Trump) see people pushing for the Electoral college to overturn the decision and just shrug and say, "Your team lost. That happens sometimes. It's not the end of the world. Despite what his detractors want you to believe, Trump isn't the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler. Get over it."

              That's because I imagine that, while the Electoral College can overturn the election, it would cause absolute havoc with our political system and with society, and most politicians and even many Americans probably don't honestly believe, deep down, that Trump would cause a comparable amount of havoc to something like that.

              Still, by all means do what you can to try and prevent Trump from being chosen by the Electoral college, if that'll help you sleep better at night, but don't get too invested in it because I don't think the odds were in your favor to begin with - and they're getting worse as more and more people are getting used to the idea of a Trump presidency.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by AnubisXy View Post
                Plus, when you back that up with various statements coming out of Trump today with the New York Times, such as saying he does in fact believe climate change is linked with human actions, that he wasn't interested in going to go after Hillary, that he rejected and condemned white supremacists, etc, I think that will help make him look like his stances are softening and make him a bit more appealing to moderates.
                Less appealing to the voters who put him into play thinking he'd actually try to do some of the things he said he'd do, though. All those supporters who wanted Hillary in jail and don't believe climate change exists probably wouldn't have voted for him.

                Republican members of the electorate could justifiably change their votes because he's already gone back on some of the key points of his platform.

                That said, it looks like he's just going to let the Republicans run everything while he tries to look good and more than a few Republicans are up for that. Why rock the boat when you can just be in charge? They've already shown they have no backbone, pushing each other over to kiss more ass once it looked like he won, excusing away all the things they've proclaimed to be against for the past decades.
                Last edited by nofather; 11-23-2016, 01:32 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  The people signing onto this have better prospects asking the Clinton campaign to challenge the vote results in a number of swing states. There are statistical anomalies that make this an idea worth her looking into, and she doesn't have a conservative Supreme Court to rule against her like Gore did. The Obama administration doesn't want this because they (allegedly) want a smooth transition of power, but I believe they want to give Trump a chance to really botch the job so the Dems can make a strong showing in 2018 and 2020. If Clinton had the results recounted and ended up winning (or even just nullifying a Trump win) it could possibly lead to a greater mobilization of support for the GOP. It's strategy versus tactics.


                  Onyx Path Forum Administrator
                  Posts in this color are moderator posts
                  Posts in this color mean a Great Old One has driven me mad.
                  Forum Terms of Use
                  the Contact Us link.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    This does bring up an interesting point about the Electoral College that people have generally forgotten (or not learned the first place): the President was never supposed to be selected by popular vote. The intent was always that each state's Electors would study the issues and the candidates, then get together, discuss among themselves who the best candidate would be, vote, and send the results of their votes to Washington D.C. to be tallied. This business about binding their votes according to their states' popular votes (or any other votes) is actually a subversion of the original intent.

                    Where do I stand on this? This election cycle, as with every other in all over two centuries, the Electors have not been chosen based on how well they know the issues and the candidates; they've been selected based on who they intend to vote for. So no, I don't see Clinton pulling out a last-ditch win by convincing Electors who were chosen to vote for Trump to vote for her instead. In fact, if (say) a Supreme Court ruling came down tomorrow ruling unconstitutional all of the state laws aimed at coercing the Electors to vote a certain way, I don't think it would make much difference at this point.

                    I'd love such a ruling, by the way. It would break up the big-state voting blocs like Texas and California, the latter of which would have greatly increased the potential of my vote mattering in this last election; and it would put an end to the current effort to subvert the Electoral College system by setting up an interstate compact whereby a subset of the states whose total Electoral College votes exceed half of the total pledge to direct all of their votes to whoever wins the National popular vote. (This is a bad thing because if the President gets chosen by a general popular vote, then elections become a contest to see who can win Los Angeles, San Fransisco, New York, and a handful of other high-population urban centers, with the rest of America largely being ignored.) Free the Electoral College from the constraints placed on it, replacing them with anti-corruption laws designed to shield the Electors from bribery and blackmail, and see how things go.



                    ★ Neither were Senators, for that matter; They were supposed to be chosen by the state governments. Only the House of Representatives was supposed to be chosen by popular vote.


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Reverting to the original idea of the EC as detailed by Madison and Hamilton without Redistricting/Gerrymandering reform (and perhaps an amendment to the number of members of the Congress), would just be the opposite of the popular vote winning: the districts with the smallest and most homogeneous populations decide the election. Basically it creates the current issue with the Republican stranglehold on the House. Even though the Republicans consistently get less total votes for the House, they get the most seats by virtue of the growing shift of Democratic leaning voters being more and more urban, with Republican leaning voters being more and more rural.

                      Making a system that doesn't overly bias the election towards one group has the end result of biasing the election towards the popular vote anyway.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I'd definitely favor Redistricting/Gerrymandering reform, too: voters should select their representatives, not the other way around. Note that such reform wouldn't be one-sided; California, for instance, has its district lines drawn to heavily favor the Democrats, who have a nearly complete chokehold on the state.


                        Comment


                        • #13
                          It wouldn't be one-sided no, but the current level of gerrymandering in the USA drastically favors the Republicans over the Democrats. Though CA has ballot initiative based reform that should play out in 2020 anyway; I'm not sure how much it can change though. CA goes Democrat because a 2/3 vote advantage isn't going to allow CA to become competitive even with more competitive districts. Ohio's recent redistricting reform (also not really going to be seen in effect until 2020) is going to have a much bigger impact. PA and NC are the next big states that would see a major impact from serious reform; both of which would favor Democrats statistically. Even if you take the "most*" gerrymandered blue state of Maryland, most independent redistricting attempts might make fairer maps, but still wouldn't see any significant change in the state legislature or the Congressional delegation.

                          The point of bringing it up though, is that it has to come first for the system to return to its original intent.


                          * - Illinois is actually more gerrymandered in the sense of Democrats suppressing Republican voting power, but it lacks the crazy shapes Maryland has.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            People should be careful with what "solutions" they propose to correct things when it doesn't go their way. Invariably, what you desire to happen to the other side will eventually be done to your side.

                            Take gerrymandering for example. If you want to reform it or get rid of it entirely in order to benefit from a perceived imbalance in your area, you create another imbalance in another area. Some group's votes will be diluted.

                            Want to enact the "nuclear option" and require only 51 votes for approval on appointments? Fine. Guess what happens when the other side gets 51 votes?

                            Whenever you give power to the government, they will never give it up willingly. So an ounce of prevention is worth a metric fuckton of cure when thinking about meddling.

                            Always remember that whatever power you give the government to do things FOR you, you also give them the power to do it TO you. Whatever steps you take to prevent the candidate you don't like from winning can be done by the other side to prevent your candidate from winning.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I don't think that's something we need fear. Trump isn't a normal candidate. The issue isn't simply not liking him. Racism, misogyny, sexual harassment, homophobia, transphobia, fear of immigrants, anti-environmentalism (which is still his policy no matter he's said: https://www.theguardian.com/environm...hange-research) are objectively destructive, and his lack of qualifications for office is no matter of opinion. The parties aren't equivalent, either. A Democratic demagogue getting the electoral college vote over a reasonable Republican candidate who wins the popular vote isn't a realistic scenario, one who's so objectively dangerous that even electors in Democratic-majority States feel moved to prevent him or her from assuming office. But if it did happen, it would be the will of the people to overturn it, too, and that's what matters.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X