Huffington Post: The Electoral College Was Designed to Prevent Trump...Make This Happen.

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but the Electoral College was established to keep states with large populations, like California, from choosing the president. It gives all states a vote. It would be political suicide to vote against ones state... or atleast that is the idea that makes the college work. If the electors usurp the will of the people, we will see sedition on a grand scale

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Trump is the projected winner. But most states are not done counting.

No, none of the states will likely be overturned as they finish the counting, but they are not finished tallying up the popular vote totals in the states that have been called.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

You mentioned Arizona, 100% precincts counted.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Honestly I think it's just California that pushed things over for her in the popular vote, and I wish that stupid place would just become its own country. They are a nightmare, they have a big economy but face budget struggles because they are too liberal, they are an ecological nightmare - they have water bottling companies using millions of gallons a year or more without permits and they insist that other states water is their water - instead of just advancing desalination plants, which I believe could have been done long ago.

Things in Utah have warning labels on them because California is a special snowflake. We always joke that "this thing only causes cancer in California, not here" - which is half true. How many people eat a fishing rod? Only in California.

I'm not inherently against every citizen there, but the crime, anonymity, oppression and inequality, etc are in huge amounts on the coasts of the United States, huge cities are very unnatural as they are and are not conducive to a correctly working democracy.

a reply to: onthedownlow

That is what people doesn't understand and that is why the electoral votes sign pacts with their states, to avoid dissent.

California always have given the democrats the majority when it comes to popularity votes. That is the way it is.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You mentioned Arizona, 100% precincts counted.

Try this...the NYT:

Link

They are showing 82% of the votes counted.

Also, on CNN you can see that the precincts are merely marked as leaning Republican, but enough so that they have projected Trump the winner. They are not solid red yet.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

We'll that's interesting, the Washington Post has something completely different. I will go with yours since it appears to be real time.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You're right. WaPo does show 100% there but they have the same vote tally as CNN and NYT.

I think that 100% is a mistake, but can totally see why you hd that impression.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Imagine, a newspaper has inaccuracies, who would have thought.

a reply to: TrueBrit

"but the people's voice was NOT reflected in the result of the election. "

That would appear to be the case, wouldn't it. That is to say, it seems HRC won the popular vote, but lost on the basis of the Electoral College.

The Electoral College "concept" is a difficult one to wrap ones mind around. In this election it seems to have worked as sort of a fail safe mechanism. So............the "coasts" of the US have much more population and are always Democrat. But occasionally their out weighed the rest of the country which has proportionately fewer people, but has more.....States.

I've been looking for answers to better understand all this and I'm trying to confirm a suspicion as to what's going on with this, but have yet to confirm it.

One place I looked is: factfinder.census.gov...

Then I looked at: www.statisticbrain.com...

Then I found: brandongaille.com...

That's interesting and it might bear out my suspicion, i.e., the greater a state's percentage of population on welfare, the more likely it is the State is a "blue" vs. a "red" state.

More research is needed however.

So......is it possible that the Electoral College is working to safe guard the interests of the "producers" vs. "takers"?

a reply to: TonyS

Bingo, I am very happy that you are doing your research that is what is all about learning about how thing work within our political system, that is why is one of the best in the work.

Every elections the losing side always hope for dissent from the electoral voters, but until now it has never happen.

Is not going to happen, the president elect is always one that become president.

Without an electoral vote only a few states will control elections in the nation.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Oh good god...this popular vote issue is going to get worse. Below is a snapshot of what NBC has each state reporting. Note that California and Washington state are still in the 60% range.

Fuh. I have a feeling things are about to explode over the weekend:


Link


And, again, I feel this was all by design. See my comment here: Link

Not that anyone ever listens to me, but they should on this one. I spent a lot of years researching how the two parties orchestrated the election debacles, in 2000 & 2004, to seize our election systems. They convinced us to move away from paper ballots, move towards hackable voting machines, and usher in the HAVA which undid the security of our voter registration systems (along with centralizing state voter registration databases).

They are going to try to change the rules after the game ended with 'faithless electors,' and then abolish the EC. I am for abolishing it -- I believe in 1 person/1 vote -- but NOT retroactively.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
They are going to try to change the rules after the game ended with 'faithless electors,' and then abolish the EC. I am for abolishing it -- I believe in 1 person/1 vote -- but NOT retroactively.

The Electors are almost entirely complete and total party loyalists, they will not change their votes.

And for the record, I am 100% pro-Electoral College.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: TonyS

Bingo, I am very happy that you are doing your research that is what is all about learning about how thing work within our political system, that is why is one of the best in the work.

Every elections the losing side always hope for dissent from the electoral voters, but until now it has never happen.

Is not going to happen, the president elect is always one that become president.

Without an electoral vote only a few states will control elections in the nation.

But you'd think that the public education system would have already taught everyone our system of government, no?

Wonder why they haven't? It is not easy to control an educated and informed populace.

I witnessed, during the late 70's through late 80's, what were once individual, required to graduate "Civics" classes disappearing, being folded into "world history" and "social studies" classes for most students, turning the knowing of our system of government from required learning into a chapter referencing a footnote or two in history.

It is ridiculous, and actually quite depressing to think that current adults in this country do not understand and appreciate the rationale of those who wrote the Constitution in doing what they did. And what they did was quite brilliant.

a reply to: TonyS

If that is the case, then there is little point in elections at all. Democracy is like a two way switch. You either have it, or not. Pick one

What I don't understand is how is it possible to not have all the votes tallied by now ??

You guys use an electronic voting system, which means the totals should completed within hours... yes, no ?

It's not like you've got thousands of people sitting around counting individual pieces of paper.

I'm confused.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
You guys use an electronic election system, which means the totals should completed within hours... yes, no ?

Not everywhere.

Oregon, for example, is all mail in ballots.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

And for the record, I am 100% pro-Electoral College.

I'm fine either way, but I was a Gore voter, in 2000, so I understand the angst.

FTR, I voted for Johnson but was so, so happy Hillary lost.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
FTR, I voted for Johnson but was so, so happy Hillary lost.

My candidate got crushed. But I was really more concerned about the local and state candidates/issues.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Ah okay, so you guys aren't completely electronic across the board.

Then I guess, that makes sense why it's taking so long.


But 2+ days is pretty dang long, if you ask me...