Could the Electoral College Elect Clinton?

So there's a petition out there to change the mind of the Electoral College.

I'm not sure of the point of the petition, but it's possible that the Electoral College could elect Clinton on December 19th.

Funny enough, it's happened before.

In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president even though Andrew Jackson received more popular and electoral votes.

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of their states.

Wow, wouldn't that be a collective jaw drop.

No

a reply to: CryHavoc

More like wouldn't that be a real revolution?

If you think the protests and riots are bad now, let that happen and we will implode.

Clinton herself realized that even the electorates couldn't put her in the white house this election. That is why she came out on the 9th and conceded to Trump. Trump is the president elect and her supporters need to focus on 2018 and 2020 elections now for their causes.

a reply to: CryHavoc

It would lead to civil war, don't ya think?

a reply to: CryHavoc

double post

a reply to: CryHavoc

This will never happen.

For those that want the full context of your OP, and source.

www.archives.gov...

Are there restrictions on who the Electors can vote for?
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states. Some states, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. 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. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.

Oh, and about JQA, more on this,

en.wikipedia.org...

United States presidential election, 1824

The United States presidential election of 1824 was the tenth quadrennial presidential election, held from Tuesday, October 26, to Thursday, December 2, 1824. John Quincy Adams was elected President on February 9, 1825. The election was the only one in history to be decided by the House of Representatives under the provisions of the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution after no candidate secured a majority of the electoral vote. It was also the only presidential election in which the candidate who received a plurality of electoral votes (Andrew Jackson) did not become President, a source of great bitterness for Jackson and his supporters, who proclaimed the election of Adams a corrupt bargain.

You can't compare the two elections, apples to oranges.

Could you imagine if the whiners got that?

originally posted by: WilburnRoach
It would lead to civil war, don't ya think?

Or it would lead to a whole lot of new Corrections Officers jobs, as fomenting Civil War is illegal.

a reply to: CryHavoc

There are actually at least electors trying to change the minds of Republican supporting Electors, as well. Their idea, though, is to get it to a tie so that the House of Representatives can choose. I think that is if they change enough to cause a tie. If more, it is possible, in how this works, that Clinton would get it-as she has the popular vote-but definitely not probable that enough electors will become 'faithless' for either to happen.

originally posted by: CryHavoc

originally posted by: WilburnRoach
It would lead to civil war, don't ya think?

Or it would lead to a whole lot of new Corrections Officers jobs, as fomenting Civil War is illegal.

Then why advocate for the very thing that would cause one?

a reply to: CryHavoc

They potentially could since many states have no laws forcing electors to vote as the popular vote did and there are some instances of faithless electors, but this is rare and I believe the chance reduced simply for the fact that Clinton conceded. It would also require a total of at least 37 faithless electors which is doubtful.

a reply to: CryHavoc

No, the petition means dick all. Trump won, if you chose not to vote on the day they have been talking about for a year you agreed to accept the results of those that did vote. The results were in favour of trump, hillary then conceded. End of story.

This is not how an election works, you don't get to not cast your vote then complain you dont like the results. Go kick the # out of all he jack asses that didnt vote instead of ruining the lives and property of those who cared enough to have say.

Clinton is still running. Running from the law. Investigations are back on. It's not over with.

a reply to: reldra

A democrat, that wants to change a democratic election. Ladies and gentleman, i give you a hypocrite.

I would think congress would need to vote on it. Wouldn't it need 2/3 majority in both houses to amend the constitution?

Anywho...it would be REALLY fun to watch them try to abolish the EC...and attempt to steal the election from the American people.

The pre-chosen elector in a Trump state will be, almost by definition, an enthusiastic Republican, excited by the thought of having a role to play, even a symbolic one, in a Republican triumph. Almost by definition, again, he or she will be bitterly hostile to Hillary Clinton. Now what kind of motivation is going to induce them to change their minds and vote for Hillary?
Those who build their hopes on this idea just don't understand the people they're dealing with. Do you suppose that might be what cost them the election in the first place?

Makes one wonder, however,...IF Hillary HAD won...and her administration allowed illegals to flood into key states by the millions for another 4 years...if the plan was to abolish the EC early in her first term, so as to nullify the votes and influence of any red states, giving NY and CA mastery over all future elections.

originally posted by: WilburnRoach
a reply to: CryHavoc

It would lead to civil war, don't ya think?

I don't think it would. No civil war in the US could be successful unless the military had a split. If the entire military were against it, we would end up with a military coup, if none of them were against it we would end up with Hillary. It's only if they split that there would be fighting and even then it would need to be the right split because not all assets are divided evenly.

You would get protests and riots for sure, but probably not a civil war.