All This Silliness About Abolishing the Electoral College

yep, like I said, it never happened, no precedent set..... I do not think republicans or democrats woudl allow it for SC judges..

.

 

Good heavens. Reid threatened to use it on Supreme Court nominations and crowed about the fact he set the precedent. What is it you are not comprehending.

 

yes, but it never happened, precedents are only set by it actually happening, neither republicans or Democrats would ever allow this to happen for SC picks

What is it you are not comprehending about that?

.

 

The only reason that the right is as enamored of the EC is because it's the reason that they've had handed to them two elections in the past 16 years, to their benefit and to the detriment of the country.

 

No...it does not have to actually happen to set a precedent!

 

Good heavens, the precedent was set by Reid.

 

yes it does have to happen, otherwise there is no precedent of it happening .... common sense

.

 

good heavens, no it was not, it's never been done before, no precedent was set......

 

2013 Reid changed the rules to use the nuclear option on all but the Supreme Court. It was first used for Patricia Millett’s nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal.

Precedent set.

 

yes, that was a precedent .... will republicans try to set a NEW Precedent by doing the same for the SC, that remains to be seen, I doubt it though as they know they could lose seats in 2 and 4 years

but yes republicans will now benefit from the Precedent set, just as democrats woudl benefit if the republicans set a new Precedent for SC justices

.

 

trump does not have the consent of the governed



he is not king

 

What's your point? The people wailing and gnashing their teeth right now might do well to bear what you just said in mind - he's not king. He's president for 4 or 8 years. Limited in powers, limited in time. People need to settle down.

 

Scary that some folks see government as a fight, game or sport. Determining the leader of the US should be less of a competition between the red and blue teams. It should be more about solving our shared problems and reaching for opportunities as a nation.

We can't afford games anymore. We need to get real.



​

 

Did you post the above wearing your safety pin and from your safe space?

 

Here's more:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/polit...ald-trump-electoral-1479851246-htmlstory.html

NOV. 22, 2016, 3:04 P.M.
Here's why the electoral college (probably) won't stop Donald Trump from becoming president

Chris Megerian
Protesters gather in New York after the election of Donald Trump. (Alba Vigaray / European Pressphoto Agency)
Protesters gather in New York after the election of Donald Trump. (Alba Vigaray / European Pressphoto Agency)
Some liberals who really, really, really don't want Donald Trump to be president are pinning their hopes on a long-shot effort to prevent him from officially winning the election.

Understanding how their plan would work requires some background on the electoral college, which was established in the Constitution at a time when the founding fathers were wary of direct democracy.

As widely known, presidents are not chosen based on the national popular vote — if they were, Hillary Clinton would be the next commander in chief, given she is ahead by roughly 1.7 million votes.

Each state is assigned a certain number of electoral votes based on population. Those votes are awarded to candidates based on the state's popular vote. Trump won the presidential race with 290 electoral votes. (That total will reach 306 if Michigan is called for him, as expected.)

The process doesn't end on election day. Each electoral vote is represented by an elector, an actual person who has to cast an official ballot for the president on Dec. 19. The electors are chosen through different processes state by state, and usually are selected by state political parties.

With unrest over the result, there are efforts to persuade electors to be "faithless," meaning they wouldn't back Trump even if he won their states. A Change.org petition calling the president-elect a "danger to the Republic" has almost 4.6 million supporters.

What are the chances of this actually happening? Very slim, says George C. Edwards III, a Texas A&M political science professor who has written a book about the electoral college.

"From time to time, there are faithless electors," he said. "They’re few and far between."

There were some electors who refused to vote for winning candidates in the 1800s, such as six who declined to support James Madison, but never enough to sway the outcome of the race. In the last century there have only been a handful of cases.

There were some attempts to persuade electors to back Al Gore over George W. Bush during the disputed 2000 election, but they were unsuccessful.

 

... I have no idea what you are talking about. I wonder if you do?



​

 

You mean the precedent that Reid threatened to use because he thought the Senate would be a democrat lock?

 

Here's more:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roger-wolfson/the-electors-responses-an_b_13458780.html
The Electors’ responses, and why we must expect better
12/06/2016 11:44 am ET | Updated 42 minutes ago
740

Roger Wolfson
Attorney, writer
In our article two days ago, we discussed the reasons why Trump isn’t qualified to be President and why Electors are constitutionally required to vote for Hillary Clinton, instead. Citing Constitutional scholar Lawrence Lessig, we explained that the Founders of this nation created the position of “Elector” precisely to prevent a truly dangerous and unqualified person from being elevated to the Presidency.

Many people who read our article emailed their Electors. The way some of the Electors responded is shocking:

Elector John Haggard, from Michigan, responded: “On Beaver Island Deer Hunting hope to kill 3 deer. Please hold all emails. Thanks. GO TRUMP.”

Elector Alex Kim, from Texas, wrote: “I reject the Democratic Party principles and I reject Hillary Clinton. I will not do anything that will open a path for HRC to become our next President. [T]he political opinions of non-Texas voters means nothing to me. I do not vote or get involved in your state, I am not sure why you are trying to interfere in mine. I encourage you to be more active in the political process where your vote matters.”

Both of these Electors aren’t aware of the constitutional requirements of their job. Alexander Hamilton explains it best: “[Electors should be] men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to [the Presidency].” They should act “under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.” They should “possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.”

Consequently, someone who ignores feedback, like Mr. Haggard, does not demonstrate the mindset required by his position. Someone like Mr. Kim, who announces that his decision is made on a purely Partisan basis and that the views of non-Texans are irrelevant to him, is likewise shirking his precious responsibilities.

A more hopeful (if condescending) response came from Elector L. Scott Mann, also of Texas.

“You have every right to lobby an elector... I am delighted that many are reading the Federalist Papers. I’ve been reading them for twenty years. Yes, I agree with Hamilton in Federalist 68. No, I do not believe that the election of Donald Trump rises to that level.”

So, if Mr. Mann is to be believed, then he needs to be convinced that Donald Trump is unfit for the Presidency. We need use no other words to do so, than those of his fellow Republican Texan Elector - Christopher Suprun, a 9/11 first responder — who writes why he is choosing to change his vote:

[Donald Trump] shows daily he is not qualified for the office. Federalist 68 argued that an Electoral College should determine if candidates are qualified, not engaged in demagogy, and independent from foreign influence. Mr. Trump shows us again and again that he does not meet these standards.

I have poured countless hours into serving the party of Lincoln and electing its candidates... But I owe no debt to a party. I owe a debt to my children to leave them a nation they can trust.

Mr. Trump lacks the foreign policy experience and demeanor needed to be commander in chief. During the campaign more than 50 Republican former national security officials and foreign policy experts co-signed a letter opposing him. In their words, “he would be a dangerous president.” During the campaign Mr. Trump even said Russia should hack Hillary Clinton’s emails.

Hamilton also reminded us that a president cannot be a demagogue. Mr. Trump urged violence against protesters at his rallies during the campaign. He speaks of retribution against his critics. He has surrounded himself with advisers such as Stephen K. Bannon, who claims to be a Leninist and lauds villains and their thirst for power.

Finally, Mr. Trump does not understand that the Constitution expressly forbids a president to receive payments or gifts from foreign governments. We have reports that Mr. Trump’s organization has business dealings in Argentina, Bahrain, Taiwan and elsewhere.... [Trump] has played fast and loose with the law for years. He may have violated the Cuban embargo, and there are reports of improprieties involving his foundation and actions he took against minority tenants in New York.

But even Mr. Suprun remains on the Partisan bandwagon, and needs encouragement to stick to his principles as an American first, a Republican second. He wants Electors to unite behind a Republican alternative to Trump. What he and others don’t understand is, the Republican Party didn’t win the Electoral College. An unfit man did. The duty of the Electors is to install as President the winner of the Popular Vote.

And it is our duty as citizens to encourage them to do so. Don’t listen to people who say this is not a Democracy, this is a Republic. In truth, it is both. America is a constitutionally limited representative democratic republic. That means - we are guided by a constitution, and governed by representatives, who are chosen democratically. As for our Chief Executive, our Founders carefully wove protective layers into his or her selection. They made sure that the appointment of a President would be based on more than just majority opinion. That it would be based on more than just the Electoral College. They created, therefore, the position of Elector. Electors are a key element of our way of life; and the key component of their office is, they are free to vote for whoever they believe is most qualified to serve this Nation. (State laws that try to constrain their votes are constitutionally questionable and possibly unenforceable).

 

Trump is a foul-mouthed, narcissistic, Constitution-trampling blowhard. The only reason you don't agree with him on everything else is that he chose to put an R by his name rather than a D.

 

Why should they pick Hillary as the alternative? The 12th amendment clearly states that the House should choose from the top 3 electoral vote getters in the absence of a majority. It's doubtful that they'd consider the second most corrupt human being (Bill Clinton being the first) in American politics to be any more qualified than a foul-mouthed, narcissistic, fragile blowhard.

They are capable of selecting someone else entirely, and since the Republicans hold the majority of the college, they would likely select a Republican as the 3rd and the House would choose that person.

 

Nah, it won't get that far. Trump is your next president. Live with it.

 

I don't really care. But I'll remind you to "live with it" when he doesn't live up to your expectations. Then again, maybe he will give you everything your little government-worshiping heart desires.

 

After eight years of Obama no wonder you are in tune with "worship".

 

Excuse me? Trump won more that 3,000 counties throughout the United States, Hillary won nearly sixty. How isn't that the consent of the governed?

 

If Trump accomplishes 10% of his promises in four years, he will have succeeded 100% more than Obama has in his 8 years of rule.