Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Give it up, dude. The electoral college isn't going to revolt against Trump.

[TheBiggerFish]

Give it up, dude. The electoral college isn't going to revolt against Trump.

There's 6 faithless electors already.

[Wolfhunter107]

Give it up, dude. The electoral college isn't going to revolt against Trump.

There's 6 faithless electors already.

Six isn't anywhere enough, and I think that's about as large as it's going to get. Grow up, accept that we lost, and come again in 2020.

[Criptfeind]

Come again in 2018 hopefully.

[smjjames]

You should stop the bullshit about the "popular vote". In most federations, Members get a number of votes and those votes are not directly related to the number of peoples in said members.
It makes total sense, because it allow for a representation of all groups regardless of their population. Belgium is a good example of that.

It's pretty representative of how fact aren't even factored in American debate. I never saw this argument (that this is fairly common in federation) brought up. Neither by pro nor anti Trump.

No, it shows how BS the electoral college is.

Give it up, dude. The electoral college isn't going to revolt against Trump.

There's 6 faithless electors already.

I wouldn't rule anything out yet, theres people pushing for the Republican electors to revolt, however, there's no organized effort being led by anybody. All I'm saying is that 2016 may not be done surprising us.

I agree that the electoral college isn't likely to revolt against Trump, and throwing it to the House would just be an exercise in futility.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/sean-hannity-trump-media-access-231798 Bleep off Hannity, media access includes you btw.... Also, he's evidently fallen off the cliff and is deep in tinfoil-hat land.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Why exactly do we keep saying it would go to the House? If 37 Republican electors went faithless for Clinton, that'd just be a win for her from my understanding of law. Or are we going with the idea that they'd give them to McMuffin or something instead of the Arch-Democrat?

[smjjames]

Why exactly do we keep saying it would go to the House? If 37 Republican electors went faithless for Clinton, that'd just be a win for her from my understanding of law. Or are we going with the idea that they'd give them to McMuffin or something instead of the Arch-Democrat?

I'm not sure what would exactly would happen actually, the last time that it happened, it got sent to the House, but that was over 150 years ago. We'll just have to wait and see how it goes.

[Lord Shonus]

It goes to the house when nobody has the majority (270 in 2016, 134 in 1824). If enough electors go faithless to bring Hillary to 270, she wins outright. If enough go fatihless to bring Trump under 270 but don't go to Hillary, it goes to the House. The Constitution is very clear on that.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

[LoSboccacc]

I wouldn't rule anything out yet, theres people pushing for the Republican electors to revolt, however, there's no organized effort being led by anybody. All I'm saying is that 2016 may not be done surprising us.

So you'r saying there's a chance for Harambe?

[smjjames]

It goes to the house when nobody has the majority (270 in 2016, 134 in 1824). If enough electors go faithless to bring Hillary to 270, she wins outright. If enough go fatihless to bring Trump under 270 but don't go to Hillary, it goes to the House. The Constitution is very clear on that.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

Either one would be a political earthquake because it's unprecedented in modern times. Though the first one would be unprecedented, period, because it hasn't happened before.

Anyway, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/23/jill-stein-election-recount-fund-michigan-wisconsin-pennsylvania , Jill Stein is taking the initiative if Clinton won't, or can't due to political optics. She needs the funding though, and fast.

[Reelya]

It will be ironic if the pro-GOP people are now the ones downplaying the possibility of electoral fraud.

[Zangi]

Ain't Murrican election machines cheap and/or old crap in the first place?

IF electoral fraud happened, we had it coming.  IF it was a malfunction, we also had it coming.  Tentatively, I'd wager the latter is more likely to happen.

[TheBiggerFish]

Oh geez.  Here goes, eh?

[Phmcw]

You should stop the bullshit about the "popular vote". In most federations, Members get a number of votes and those votes are not directly related to the number of peoples in said members.
It makes total sense, because it allow for a representation of all groups regardless of their population. Belgium is a good example of that.

It's pretty representative of how fact aren't even factored in American debate. I never saw this argument (that this is fairly common in federation) brought up. Neither by pro nor anti Trump.

No, it shows how BS the electoral college is.

... is it illegal in the US to look at how other countries work or what?


That would make NO SENSE for a federation to just give the lead to whoever win the most citizen votes. Simply look at the EU.


Actually that's yet another proof that Americans are uninformed, any true information source should mention this fact.

[smjjames]

From what I've seen, people on both sides have voiced concerns in the past. Nobody is actually saying it's fraud, it's more 'we need to take a closer look at this'. Also, nobody pro-GOP (or GOP even) has spoken on it yet AFAIK.

It may turn out to be nothing, or it may be something serious that requires a recount or an audit or something.

Ain't Murrican election machines cheap and/or old crap in the first place?

IF electoral fraud happened, we had it coming.  IF it was a malfunction, we also had it coming.  Tentatively, I'd wager the latter is more likely to happen.

If it was a malfunction, it would have to affect a LOT of machines and we don't know if the same machine was used in the whole of all three states. If the same machine was NOT used in all three states and it's several different machines, that makes a malfunction a LOT less probable.