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.

 

Sorry, If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Too early for my mind to remember from all those years ago.

And some aren't

 

Are there enough that aren't to change the results? I honestly don't know. All they can do as far as I know is keep Trump from getting the 270 needed and then force a vote of the HOR where Trump will win, although I can imagine some of the floor speeches for the likes of Pelosi and Yarmuth will be entertaining.

 

Bottom line for me is that Trump will be the President, legally elected by the process set forth in the constitution and all the left has done has been an effort to some how delegitimize his election. The same side that said contesting the results of the election would be UnAmerican are now being exactly that.

There is nothing in the constitution tying electors to voters in their states. If you read what the "Founders" had to say about it, it was clearly meant for the "wise" people of the country to elect (or really nominate) the president. Read Federalist 68.

 

That electors have ended up being faithful to their states' votes since universal male suffrage was achieved around the time of Jackson's presidency was simply a byproduct of a democratizing country. The constitution was never amended to change this system and tie electors to states' popular votes. Under the original constitution only the House would be elected via popular vote.

 

That's why I don't understand how people can both support this system and be bothered that electors are being lobbied to vote differently. That's exactly how it was designed.

And I don't support this movement, but it's exactly why I also don't support the EC.

 

A conveniently ignored truth.

Now you're doing what you always do. Change the debate.

 

You said they were corrupt for possibly doing something that appears to be legal. Let's stick to the des ate YOU started.

 

I am not changing it Clyde. I have responded to why I think its corrupt. I have posted video and email proof as to why I think that. I have said the DNC, the Clintons are involved behind the scenes pushing this as they did with the recount with Jill Stien. Corruption right in front of our eyes. Thats my case. Whether the laws are flawed to the point it undermines our country or not is moot here given all thats happened with PROOF. Thats my reasoning. And one that will never be changed. You have yet to answer if these videos or emails show corruption on the DNC and Clinton along with others? I posted VIDEO proof and email proof. The Russians did it right. Does that make it any less true what I posted on the emails?

 

Bottom line is nobody is gonna believe the D's anymore, or anyone from the right or left not drinking the kool aid of the left anyway. What more proof do you need?

Head spinning faster

 

Are you sure you don't have an inner ear infection?

There is nothing in the constitution tying electors to voters in their states. If you read what the "Founders" had to say about it, it was clearly meant for the "wise" people of the country to elect (or really nominate) the president. Read Federalist 68.

 

That electors have ended up being faithful to their states' votes since universal male suffrage was achieved around the time of Jackson's presidency was simply a byproduct of a democratizing country. The constitution was never amended to change this system and tie electors to states' popular votes. Under the original constitution only the House would be elected via popular vote.

 

That's why I don't understand how people can both support this system and be bothered that electors are being lobbied to vote differently. That's exactly how it was designed.

 

And I don't support this movement, but it's exactly why I also don't support the EC.

 

Who are these people Habib?

Are there enough that aren't to change the results? I honestly don't know. All they can do as far as I know is keep Trump from getting the 270 needed and then force a vote of the HOR where Trump will win, although I can imagine some of the floor speeches for the likes of Pelosi and Yarmuth will be entertaining.

 

Bottom line for me is that Trump will be the President, legally elected by the process set forth in the constitution and all the left has done has been an effort to some how delegitimize his election. The same side that said contesting the results of the election would be UnAmerican are now being exactly that.

 

I seriously doubt there will be....more accurately, there's a snowballs chance in hell, that it will happen. I hope it doesn't happen. But it does show the quirks and warts of the electoral college system. Quite frankly, I'm surprised this hasn't been an issue before. But I'm fairly sure this won't be the last time something like this occurs, unless the system gets addressed.

Thank goodness the discussion will be over after tomorrow's EC vote. The left has acted in a way that I could not even imagine after the election on 11/8. I figured there would be some upset people, but what has occurred has frankly been embarrassing. The left can say Trump supporters would do the same if things were reversed. Some on the right may have done some stupid things but NOT NEAR to the level of what has occurred on the left. Someone said the left has been "lobbying" the electors? Seriously? It is called harassing, intimidating, threatening and in some cases, death threats. The use of the word "lobbying" is just insulting.

 

Look, if you don't like the rules, try to get them changed. But you cannot change the rules after the results just because you don't like them. If the rules were different in the beginning, both candidates would have campaigned TOTALLY DIFFERENTLY. Trump did not even visit California or New York (which are the two states that gave her the popular vote win) because he knew he had no chance to carry those states. The Dems ran a horrible candidate because it was "her turn". She lost to another flawed candidate because she was SO BAD. Fact...

I seriously doubt there will be....more accurately, there's a snowballs chance in hell, that it will happen. I hope it doesn't happen. But it does show the quirks and warts of the electoral college system. Quite frankly, I'm surprised this hasn't been an issue before. But I'm fairly sure this won't be the last time something like this occurs, unless the system gets addressed.

 

I agree 100%, the precedent has been set.

 

The reason that I don't think it's happened before is because (at least in my lifetime) there has never been a candidate like Hillary Clinton that has been the heir apparent that she was. The talk of her being president started when Bill was running. I honestly believe that the Dems in 2004 were so convinced that they could make history by electing both the first black and the first woman president in back to back terms that they made a deal to have Hillary be Obama's SOS and then throw their full backing to her for a run in 2012. IMVHO Hillary started running for president as soon as she carpetbagged to NY and ran for Senate. She was derailed a bit in 2004 but never stopped running for president. Martin O'Malley was to be her token opposition in the Dem primaries to give the illusion that it was an open system. Bernie Sanders was the first to try to thwart their plans and e-mails clearly show how hard the Dems fought him. When Trump torpedoed their plans they were so shocked and so irate that their grand plan failed they've done everything in their power to muddy the waters. I'll give the Dems credit for one thing. They know how to play the long game much better then the Repubs.

Are they breaking the law or not following rules?

 

I did not say breaking, I said contorting.

There is nothing in the constitution tying electors to voters in their states. If you read what the "Founders" had to say about it, it was clearly meant for the "wise" people of the country to elect (or really nominate) the president. Read Federalist 68.

 

That electors have ended up being faithful to their states' votes since universal white male suffrage was achieved around the time of Jackson's presidency was simply a byproduct of a democratizing country. The constitution was never amended to change this system and tie electors to states' popular votes. Under the original constitution only the House would be elected via popular vote.

 

That's why I don't understand how people can both support this system and be bothered that electors are being lobbied to vote differently. That's exactly how it was designed.

 

And I don't support this movement, but it's exactly why I also don't support the EC.

 

Hamilton may of intended it that way but the Supreme Court ruled on this years ago. The law has precedence and the electors can't change vote to change the election.

 

What Happens if Electors Try to Turn Over Election Results? | Law News

But the ultimate decider is the EC voter, correct? If the EC voter legally makes a vote how is that any different than a candidate losing the popular vote but gaining the office via the electoral count ? You can't pick and choose which legal method you support.

 

Depends on the state. Some state laws provide that so called faithless Electors may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector.

 

My view would be it definitely goes against the will of the people since the EC Elector is put in place to vote the will of the people in the state. That's what I was addressing in your post when you said "We can't use the "will of the people" argument, right?". Now, this doesn't mean they can't vote against the candidate that won, it's just my opinion that it would go against the will of the people since it's states votes that matter, not overall votes countrywide. If anyone but who won the election ends up president, they will not be accepted as legitimate by a very large number of people. You think things look ugly now? Just wait to see how things go if this ridiculousness is successful.

II'm fairly sure this won't be the last time something like this occurs, unless the system gets addressed.

This will be placed in the "What Goes Around, Comes Around" file.

Again, for the few posters on here that think others on here are "bothered that electors are being lobbied to vote differently", what I'm saying and see others saying is basically get over it. You lost. Move on. Did we see this in the two prior elections? No. Why? Apparently, those on the right can handle a loss. Those on the left, not so much. And no, I don't mean all on the left, but way too many. Maybe this is what happens when you expect a village to raise a child instead of it's parents. :woot:

Hamilton may of intended it that way but the Supreme Court ruled on this years ago. The law has precedence and the electors can't change vote to change the election.

 

What Happens if Electors Try to Turn Over Election Results? | Law News

 

Just skimming the summaries of those cases, but neither opinion addressed "faithless electors." The 1892 decision affirmed states aren't obligated to hold a vote to choose their electors.