Electoral College petition has almost 1 million votes

1. Trump is on 306. You need 36 deserters.

2. More than that, you need all of those to also back Clinton, otherwise it goes to the House where Trump will win.

3. These electors are Republican stalwarts. Maybe if he had 276EV you'd have something resembling a chance, but that is not the situation we find ourselves in.


Your last chance is for Trump to urge all electors to vote Clinton, which is to say that you have such an infinitesimal chance as to not bother.

Go home.

 

They also wanted to require property (land) ownership to vote.

They certainly had a deep concern that the mob (the vulgar masses) comprised of the poor, the uneducated, and those too young and inexperienced to have earned property (or inherited it) would run amok were they allowed to vote.

Unfortunately, when we look at the state of Portland, OR and other cities dealing with similar riots, violence, and destruction of property, the Founders would seem to have had a reasonable point.

 

The will of the people-----------------does that include the votes of the illegal aliens that some states allowed to vote?

 

Good question?

 

Like Ive been saying their still counting and now i think she will lose both

 

Well, faithless electors have only voted that way 10 EC votes in the last 100 years. I don't expect the electors to destroy the system, which is intended to keep from having a tyranny of the majority. The Constitution is designed to keep any group from having too much power. That includes the people.

 

As I have explained in the past, there is a group of anarchists in southern Oregon who tend to come to these events and add property destruction and other elements to the disgust of those interested in peaceful demonstration.

Obviously, the property destruction tends to get press attention - it makes for far more flashy video.

But, writing off the event so easily is a grossly uninformed decision.


And, no, the founders missed some key issues that we have been working on. There may have been reasons at the time. For example, today we know that blacks are fully human - not 3/5ths human. Today we know that women can think for themselves. Today our literacy rate is nearly 100%. Today we all have access to timely information, analysis and theory.

We still have state legislatures who work hard to exclude those low on the personal wealth list, but we consider that to be unacceptable discrimination - or at least most of us do.

 

There was a vibrant press back and national news and it could be quite cutting.

 

Absolutely, you are correct.

The difference between that era's vibrant press and the current communication/news climate is that that 18th Century communication was slower, and distribution of newspapers and pamphlets was less pervasive. Most people lived in smaller more isolated communities. Moreover, a printing press was a substantial investment, as were paper and ink. A relatively small percentage of those early Americans had the opportunity to publish their perspectives, and those opportunities did not come hundreds of times per day.

This is in stark contrast to smartphones in most people's pockets, which most people can afford, which provide endless opportunities to publish and distribute video and text, and which constantly bombard people with multiple twitter and news feeds, etc.

I think there is a point at which such a radical change in scope may constitute a change in kind.

 

I did not mean to write off these events or the peaceful protests out of hand. Nor did I intend to imply that the founders were right about Blacks or women.

I was merely pointing out that there is a lot of behavior that demonstrates that not all participants in our society behave in ways that demonstrate that they actually understand the system established by the Framers of the Constitution.

Moreover, it seems to me that many demonstrate by their violence, destruction, and failing to vote, that they do not actually value the opportunities afforded us by the Constitution and by rule of law.

 

1 million don't get to tell the rest of us who will be president. See you at the Inaugural Bawl.

 

They were very prevasive and are taught in history class even today. There were HUGE sellers and hugely popular writers. Americans did not live in isolation. Townhall meetings were quite regular and quite the norm.

 

Wow - full circle in three short paragraphs!

 

Why do people not understand that a faithless elector violates the will of the people?

 

What circle? It is a direct line of thought.

• There are a lot of leftist crybabies that don't bother to understand basic Constitutional principles. (By the same token, there are right-wingers who do not understand basic Constitutional principles.)
• There are a lot of people who do not support themselves, but rather than feeling grateful for what help they receive, they feel entitled.
• There are a lot of people who came into this country illegally or overstayed illegally, in part to benefit from the rule of law, yet protest that they will be deported by those who would enforce the law.
• There are a lot of people who think that riot, violence, and wonton destruction is a valid response to incidents that they do not like.

The Framers of the Constitution had valid concerns about people like this having any say in the government, for exactly the same reason lots of people have valid concerns that people like this are in our society at all.

The Framers of the Constitution understood that our nation's peace, prosperity and existence depend on the Constitution, the enforcement of our laws at all levels (illegal aliens, demonstrators, cops, and former Secretaries of State included) and people meeting their responsibilities.

 

Now obama is complaining about the fact the Constitution has an equal number of Senators from each State even though this is a provision of the Constitution that can't even be changed by constitutional amendment.

 

Big whoop. That is 1/318 th of the population of the country.

 

Where was the outrage when, during the primaries, Bernie was beating Hillary in the popular vote, in certain states, but she got more delegates because of the super delegates? He wins the popular vote and she wins the state and what really counts, the delegates.