Electoral College Revolt Growing Into 'Powerful Show of Force'

And he'll laugh at you and do what he wants, while you bask in the glory of your dark clouds

 

lol I saw that, this whole movement cost Hillary more than trump

 

The meltdown is one of the funniest and most entertaining things about this election. The problem here is that the left were never provided 'participation' awards for voting.

 

They were given one and just didn't realize it:

 

True enough and very ironic!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqxVljjCwKE

I found Clintons "Angry White Men"

 

So you defending Trump now?

And do quote me the section of the Constitution that says "The electors would not only be doing nothing wrong, but would be doing their constitutional duty to elect Clinton instead of Donald."

If you are referring the Hamiltonian view of things, well do you really what the head of state to be as Hamilton envisioned and selected as he envisioned? The Constitutional Convention was wise enough to leave it up to the states and we had the several iterations the states experiment with and guess what, they all settled on a popular vote within the state to choose that states electors.

 

YEP and exercise in futility.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the States would and those without laws binding the electors would quickly pass them.

- - - Updated - - -

Ahhhhh, you posted this to back your position

"With the Electoral College vote less than a week away, Harvard University constitutional law professor Lawrence Lessig says 20 Republican members are considering voting against Donald Trump—more than half the number needed to potentially block the real estate mogul's election. "

So how'd that work out for the learned professor?

 

- One Clinton elector in Colorado attempted to vote for John Kasich.[461] The single vote was ruled invalid by Colorado state law, the elector was dismissed, and an alternative elector was sworn in who voted for Clinton[462][463]
- One Clinton elector in Minnesota voted for Bernie Sanders as President and Tulsi Gabbard as vice president; his votes were discarded and he was replaced by an alternate who voted for Clinton[462]
- One Clinton elector in Maine voted for Bernie Sanders; this vote was invalidated as "improper" and the elector subsequently voted for Clinton[462]
- Four Clinton electors in Washington did not vote for Clinton (three votes went to Colin Powell, and one to Faith Spotted Eagle)[464]
- Two Trump electors in Texas did not vote for Trump (one vote went to John Kasich, one to Ron Paul); one elector did not vote for Pence and instead voted for Carly Fiorina for Vice-President; a third resigned before the vote rather than vote for Trump and was replaced by an alternate.[464]
- One Clinton elector in Hawaii voted for Bernie Sanders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite...2016#Electoral_College_lobbying_and_petitions

 

Last time I checked there were a few defections from Trump to other candidates. You think this arrogant millionaire gives a flying fudge about working people? Dream on! Clinton or Trump ---- what are the major differences?? Trump is not wise. He does not know anything about history. Trump supported the Iraq war initially. You all that suported him supported the Iraq war too. I did not and I would argue with people online and in the street about the futility to invade other countries. Trump is about as wise as a boiled egg. He spent most of his life being a spoiled brat millionaire having his "Vietnam" banging beaver while others are studying history. He is a fool.
He is going to have a brief honeymoon.

 

You all are still arguing the whole thing wrong.

There is only one guaranteed fact that the people know from the all out onslaught on Trump from anyone with power.

The people who screw us - hate him.

You want me to hate Trump? Have Hillary say she supports him. Yeah - that's how far from the pulse the left is.

 

Yes. The electoral college showed us that they were incorrect. LESS people voted for Hillary.

 

I'm torn how I feel about this, but if they are just going to automatically give their vote to who won their state...then why have electors at all? Why not make it automatic?

 

That's what I'm thinking

- - - Updated - - -

That's what I'm thinking

 

Imagine if Hillary won. A week later she was convicted of a crime. In such a case the electors could justifiably change their vote.

 

They'd still be in violation of state law in most cases.

 

The constitution necessitates the electors.
How the electors are selected and how they vote depends on state law.

 

Could be but I'm going to enjoy watching progressive heads fall off. Did you say "powerful" or powerless? Trump lost 2 votes, Hillary lost 4 or 5. I like sweet rolls.

 

Look at it this way if it was President Donald Trump from 2001-2009 instead of President Bush the former would be the worst president in U.S. history and not the other way around. But history is going to catch up with
Trump. You can be sure of that.

- - - Updated - - -

Does it happen often in recent times or decades that electors go rogue and disobey their constituents???? These are not normal times. By the way, I despise the Clintons.

 

BUT BUT BUT he's a highly educated college professor!

 

Not at all.

Alexander Hamilton described the framers' view of how electors would be chosen, "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated [tasks]."[28] The founders assumed this would take place district by district. That plan was carried out by many states until the 1880s. For example, in Massachusetts in 1820, the rule stated "the people shall vote by ballot, on which shall be designated who is voted for as an Elector for the district."[29] In other words, the people did not place the name of a candidate for a president on the ballot, instead they voted for their local elector, whom they trusted later to cast a responsible vote for president.

Some states reasoned the favorite presidential candidate among the people in their state would have a much better chance if all of the electors selected by their state were sure to vote the same way – a "general ticket" of electors pledged to a party candidate.[30] So the slate of electors chosen by the state were no longer free agents, independent thinkers, or deliberative representatives. They became "voluntary party lackeys and intellectual non-entities."[31] Once one state took that strategy, the others felt compelled to follow suit in order to compete for the strongest influence on the election.[30]

When James Madison and Hamilton, two of the most important architects of the Electoral College, saw this strategy being taken by some states, they protested strongly. Madison and Hamilton both made it clear this approach violated the spirit of the Constitution. According to Hamilton, the selection of the president should be "made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station [of president]."[28] According to Hamilton, the electors were to analyze the list of potential presidents and select the best one. He also used the term "deliberate." Hamilton considered a pre-pledged elector to violate the spirit of Article II of the Constitution insofar as such electors could make no "analysis" or "deliberate" concerning the candidates. Madison agreed entirely, saying that when the Constitution was written, all of its authors assumed individual electors would be elected in their districts and it was inconceivable a "general ticket" of electors dictated by a state would supplant the concept. Madison wrote to George Hay,

The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket [many years later].[32]

The founders assumed electors would be elected by the citizens of his district, and that elector was to be free to analyze and deliberate regarding who is best suited to be president.

Madison and Hamilton were so upset by what they saw as a distortion of the framers’ original intent, they advocated for a constitutional amendment to prevent anything other than the district plan: "the election of Presidential Electors by districts, is an amendment very proper to be brought forward," Madison told George Hay in 1823.[32] Hamilton went further. He actually drafted an amendment to the Constitution mandating the district plan for selecting electors.[33]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

It's not a question of what I want. I support democracy and want the we the people to choose.

 

Twice as many defections from Trump. So how many does it take to make a "powerful force"?

Certainly more so than Obama or Clinton ever did.

Clinton and Obama are not wise and know little of history and this professor just showed he is not very wise and doesn't know much about history.

Clinton was one of the most vocal and unequivocal supporters of removing Saddam as was her husband who signed the act that made it the official policy of the United States which then Bush inherited.

I didn't support him but did support removing Saddam from power.

What was your plan to deal with him?

Ahhhh, he was defeated and removed, what was futile that was the goal. Bill Clinton failed and handed it over to Bush43, he succeeded.

 

You said

So you don't defend our system?

I asked where does the Constitution state that? It doesn't, they decided to leave it to the STATES and within thirty years all by SC decided to let the people choose the state electors AS THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS.

And the people through their respective states decided a popular election, democracy. Again you are tauting Hamilton and what he envisioned, do you really support what he envisioned yes or no?

 

They did! One State with the ability to stuff the ballot box shouldn't be able to decide the election for the rest of us. The system worked the way it was supposed to.