I'd have to accept it. Like it or not, our Electoral system was designed with that possibility in mind. It's a flaw of the system. I wasn't enthusiastic of either candidate winning office.

 

However, let's be real. While there may be some rogue electors, Trump will be the guy taking office in January. And this situation will hopefully cause some to reevaluate our Electoral system.

 

This is a hare-brained plan that won't work. But I am laughing at how many people are suddenly wringing their hands over the undemocratic nature of the EC. People are upset electors will obscure the will of the people, when that's exactly what it was designed to do! :lol2:

I doubt any change will occur. I also believe things would be exactly the same if the shoe had been in the other foot, especially with the way Trump and many (but not all) Harper about the system being rigged.

 

Ill say this, I would have accepted the results if she had won. Would not have liked it, like with the current president, but would have gotten behind her and hoped she would help us all, not just one side. Thats the same hope I have for Trump.

This is a hare-brained plan that won't work. But I am laughing at how many people are suddenly wringing their hands over the undemocratic nature of the EC. People are upset electors will obscure the will of the people, when that's exactly what it was designed to do! :lol2:

 

They vote for who their state carried. There was only one time in history that faithless electors altered the result of an electoral vote. In 1836, all 23 electors in Virginia opted to be faithless. No one is "wringing their hands over the undemocratic nature of the EC". They're pointing out childishness and the inability of many to accept a loss in an election.

I'll give you the "thousands". But there are far more that are just going to roll along, and live our lives like normal. Not everyone one the left is doing this stuff, even though that's how many on the right would like to paint it.

 

Isn't it amazing how we want smaller brushes now?

 

At one time or another the right were:

 

A bunch of gut toting bible thumping clingers

Unruley anti-government tea baggers

Deplorables

And lets not forget racist and now add misogynists to the list.

 

I'm calling it like it is. The left is a bunch of whiny little snowflakes.

I'm curious if you'd be saying the same thing if this was going on 8 years ago.

 

No one is more consistent on law than me.

 

If it's legal and it is employed legally then what could I possibly argue against?

Clyde you know this is a last ditch attempt by the left to do what they have been doing from the start. Its sickening the lengths these idiots will go to to disrupt a peaceful transition of power. Good thing I am not the president. You would call me Putin, or these idiots would. Well after I got done you both would. Im tired of this stuff. Hillary lost. The third parties lost. Trump won. Lets not keep causing division. Give him his chance like Obama and every other president has done since we became a country. This "Unite for America" movement needs crushed as its a problem for America and they need to stop.

 

You didn't answer my question. If it's legal why would you not support it?

HRC 65.8M votes

Mr Trump 63M votes

 

We can't use the "will of the people" argument, right?

If they are legally allowed to do it why wouldn't you accept it?

 

It breeds and smells of corruption. Why have a general election at all?

You didn't answer my question. If it's legal why would you not support it?

 

I think I was clear. You just never accepted my response. Its corrupt like the Democratic party.

sorry

HRC 65.8M votes

Mr Trump 63M votes

 

We can't use the "will of the people" argument, right?

 

Cant have it both ways Clyde. No wait, the left wants it that way. Do you not remember all the crap the left said about Trump after he said he would have to wait and see if he would accept the results? You are still trying to get your head wrapped around this right?

HRC 65.8M votes

Mr Trump 63M votes

 

We can't use the "will of the people" argument, right?

 

You can use the argument that the electors are voting the will of the people in the areas they represent.

 

You can argue that a few coastal elites are trying to go against the will of the people in other parts of the country.

 

You can use the argument that the election was won based on the system set up by the constitution.

 

You don't like the current laws in place that bind the electors to vote for certain people, change those laws.

No one is more consistent on law than me.

 

If it's legal and it is employed legally then what could I possibly argue against?

 

Thank you for the answer. Wasn't that I was doubting you, just wanted to get your answer. Glad you would have been fine back then, many wouldn't have.

HRC 65.8M votes

Mr Trump 63M votes

 

We can't use the "will of the people" argument, right?

 

I think we can. We don't elect a president by the popular vote, thankfully. Through the EC, the correct way for this country to elect a president IMO, the will of the people has been answered. I would say the same thing had Trump won the popular vote but Hillary won the EC.

I'd feel that it was legal. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

Our elections have rules. We've seen that simple majority does not rule. So if simple majority does not rule and IF (I have no clue on what electoral voter rules are) electoral voters legally change their mind then, just like a POTUS winning despite 2.5M more people voting for someone else I'd have to accept what the electoral voters legally did.

 

Wouldn't you?

 

Key word in all of this "IF". Electors are bound by the voting will of the people in states won by President Elect Trump. Your "IF" is the same as an old sayin from my Mother, " IF wishes were horses, beggars could fly." "IF" Electors could change their vote legally, would I support that vote?" "IF" NASA could legally guarantee I would survive a trip to Mars and back, would I go? Answer to both questions is NO, because both are based on an "IF" that is impossible.