No announcement yet.

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

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Herbert_West View Post
    Speaking as an outsider, aka a non-US citizen, this is a very bad idea. The country already seems divided and I think part of the reason HRC did not carry the election is her association with dubious acts like this petition, true or not. The Democrats dont need another "going against the will of the people" sticker. What the Democrats need to do is to take a long, hard look at themselves and their internal structure, and figure out how they managed to lose to Donald "pussygrabber" Trump.
    The problem with this is that the Democrats don't have a, "going against the will of the people," problem. They get more votes fairly regularly at the federal level. Clinton got ~2.9 million more votes than Trump. She lost because our system is designed to not go on raw popular vote. In pretty much any other western democracy, she would have won, and the Democrats would probably be in control of the House.

    The Democrats have a problem that's more than just their internal structure. They are the more popular party. Their policies are generally more popular. But because of the structure of our democratic republic system, the urbanization of the country has been chipping away at their effective power for decades. Losing to Trump really is far less of a concern than figuring out how to fix their problems with mobilizing their efforts in the House and state level elections. Losing the Presidency sucks, but the President has a lot less power than people seem to think. As the Republicans have demonstrated controlling the House and having enough of the Senate is enough to grind anything the President wants to do to a halt, while having a lot of control over state level politics lets them push their agendas on a local level while the federal government is gridlocked (including measures to keep it that way).

    There's also a moral/philosophic issue at hand. Do the Democrats continue to try to be the "high road" party, or decide to "fight like Republicans," and go full partisan nasty. It's hard to say what's the good choice.

    The Democrats also have to hold their core base together. Changing their internal structures too drastically in response to a bad election risks just shifting which groups they're getting more votes from, and which groups they're losing votes they normally get.

    Originally posted by Hand-of-Omega View Post
    They'll probably use the excuse of "Well, Trump had already assembled the new administration, and if we put Hillary in power, then that would have just delayed the new govt even longer..." which is bull.
    They're far more likely to say, "we were picked as electors to pick the winner of our state's votes, so that's what we did."

    Originally posted by Hand-of-Omega View Post
    Huh. The CNN news anchor just told us that the Republicans, who are running the Electoral vote for some reason, have promised that no Electors will go rogue, but that if any do, then they will simply replace them with ones who will vote for Trump!
    The electors meet as a group per-state, which allows them some time to replace them, and there are processes for that in case of any reason an elector can't serve.

    Whether or not the Republicans can replace a faithless elector depends on the rules of each state, though a faithless elector that wanted to could sue over it if they wanted to. It just wouldn't really matter unless somehow that one elector was going to decide the final vote (which it's not at this point).

    Originally posted by nofather View Post
    I don't expect a big upset at the electoral college but I didn't expect Trump to win so who knows.
    It's not going to happen at this point. Enough numbers are in that he might lose some, but not enough to change anything. And since Clinton isn't getting any faithless electors so far (she actually lost 4 votes to them with pointless write-ins), the worst that could happen at this point is the electors don't pick anyone, and then the Congress takes over. If that happens, then who knows what Paul Ryan is going to do, since he would suddenly have Trump by the balls as he could easily work with the Democrats to get a compromise candidate elected over the objection of the majority of his own party.


    • #47
      Well, votes are in. Trump won. Much ado about nothing.

      (CNN) - Donald Trump has surpassed the necessary 270 votes in the Electoral College, the next step in the official process to become President. He was put over the top by electors in Texas. The Electoral College results will be officially certified January 6 during a joint session of Congress.

      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.

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

      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
      Good on the one who voted for Faith Spotted Eagle though. I need to find out who that was and write them a nice letter.
      Last edited by AnubisXy; 12-19-2016, 07:01 PM.


      • #48
        One of the Electors in Colorado, a Democrat, voted for Trump against the state, in protest of the fact that Electors are obligated to vote with the state under Colorado law.

        I don't have a point to make about that, just thought it was an interesting thing that happened.

        Onyx Path Forum Moderator

        My mod voice is red. I use it so you know when I'm speaking in an official capacity, not as an indication of tone.

        Going by Willow now, or Wil for short. She/Her/Hers.