The Constitution lets the electoral college choose the winner. They should choose Clinton.

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: tabularosa
No, the Electoral College should not choose Clinton. As much as I do not want Trump as President, I want Hillary even less. Why? The DNC, Hillary, and mainstream media colluded to deny Bernie Sanders the nomination. Hillary won it only by cheating, and did so even though every poll at the time stated that she could not beat Trump but Bernie would. Choosing Hillary would make the Democratic Party more brazen, that it can lie and cheat The People anytime for any reason and without accountability. I don't think so. Trump won. Case closed.

I see... so you think a Fraud and White Nationalist, authoritarian, violent war crime advocate is the better way to go because the other person unfairly benefitted from favoritism by the DNC? You may want to try recalibrating the scale you're using....

Are you still whining?

Really?


Get over it. Move on ffs....

Are you still whining about this thread? Really? After 16 pages? Get over it. Move on ffs....

we have a law here in Michigan that prevents electors from "doing whatever they want"
are you advocating breaking laws to install Clinton as president?

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: tabularosa
No, the Electoral College should not choose Clinton. As much as I do not want Trump as President, I want Hillary even less. Why? The DNC, Hillary, and mainstream media colluded to deny Bernie Sanders the nomination. Hillary won it only by cheating, and did so even though every poll at the time stated that she could not beat Trump but Bernie would. Choosing Hillary would make the Democratic Party more brazen, that it can lie and cheat The People anytime for any reason and without accountability. I don't think so. Trump won. Case closed.

I see... so you think a Fraud and White Nationalist, authoritarian, violent war crime advocate is the better way to go because the other person unfairly benefitted from favoritism by the DNC? You may want to try recalibrating the scale you're using....

No, I think President Elect Trump has been legally chosen and for some reason YOU are as hell bent on breaking the law and the will of the American people as Clinton is. Luckily there are laws in place to stop people like you & her!

originally posted by: Martin75

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: tabularosa
No, the Electoral College should not choose Clinton. As much as I do not want Trump as President, I want Hillary even less. Why? The DNC, Hillary, and mainstream media colluded to deny Bernie Sanders the nomination. Hillary won it only by cheating, and did so even though every poll at the time stated that she could not beat Trump but Bernie would. Choosing Hillary would make the Democratic Party more brazen, that it can lie and cheat The People anytime for any reason and without accountability. I don't think so. Trump won. Case closed.

I see... so you think a Fraud and White Nationalist, authoritarian, violent war crime advocate is the better way to go because the other person unfairly benefitted from favoritism by the DNC? You may want to try recalibrating the scale you're using....

No, I think President Elect Trump has been legally chosen and for some reason YOU are as hell bent on breaking the law and the will of the American people as Clinton is. Luckily there are laws in place to stop people like you & her!

Not hellbent on breaking any laws. And ultimately I'll accept whatever the EC officially votes. I'm just throwing my support out there for the EC to do what it was designed to do, and protect the country from an authoritarian candidate who would 'violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole.' If they choose to roll over on this, that's their constitutional right... as is their right to stand up to it.

originally posted by: Konduit
Sure, if you want the states to start filing paperwork for secession.

The function of the electoral college is to make sure the nations voices aren't drowned out by states like New York, California and Texas. Clinton only won 18 out of 50 states, if the presidency was decided solely by popular vote cities like NY, LA and Chicago would determine every election, so there would be no point in campaigning anywhere but those cities.

It's called The United States for a reason.

there is no reason to campaign in California or NY in the last few decades either, so what's your point?....for the last few decades, the states of Penn, Ohio, and Florida have determined the election...so what's the differerence....by the way...when this was written into the constitution, ONLY white male land owners could vote.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: Martin75

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: tabularosa
No, the Electoral College should not choose Clinton. As much as I do not want Trump as President, I want Hillary even less. Why? The DNC, Hillary, and mainstream media colluded to deny Bernie Sanders the nomination. Hillary won it only by cheating, and did so even though every poll at the time stated that she could not beat Trump but Bernie would. Choosing Hillary would make the Democratic Party more brazen, that it can lie and cheat The People anytime for any reason and without accountability. I don't think so. Trump won. Case closed.

I see... so you think a Fraud and White Nationalist, authoritarian, violent war crime advocate is the better way to go because the other person unfairly benefitted from favoritism by the DNC? You may want to try recalibrating the scale you're using....

No, I think President Elect Trump has been legally chosen and for some reason YOU are as hell bent on breaking the law and the will of the American people as Clinton is. Luckily there are laws in place to stop people like you & her!

Not hellbent on breaking any laws. And ultimately I'll accept whatever the EC officially votes. I'm just throwing my support out there for the EC to do what it was designed to do, and protect the country from an authoritarian candidate who would 'violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole.' If they choose to roll over on this, that's their constitutional right... as is their right to stand up to it.

That is your right to support the Electoral College.

Just as it is my right to support Congress when they decide NOT to ratify the Electoral College in January if too many votes go against the wishes of their respective states voting and have to vote by 2/3 margin for the next President... which will be Trump either way.

originally posted by: Vector99

Electors are people CHOSEN by the party.

Yah, the people choose the president, because they are convinced that he will do their will, then he does his own will, and they are astonished.

Until we make our own people, through bioengineering and mental programming, each individual still has his own free will. He can promise, and proclaim, and convince others, to be selected for the role, but when he gets in that role, he is still his own man.

And the law protects each individual's rights to exercise his/her own will in casting a vote.

This must be, because anytime a vote is coerced, it becomes invalid.

originally posted by: acackohfcc
we have a law here in Michigan that prevents electors from "doing whatever they want"
are you advocating breaking laws to install Clinton as president?

Exactly how is this law enforced?

There are many unenforceable laws on the books. Laws that contradict other laws.

You cannot send a person in to cast a vote, and control that vote. If you wanted that kind of control, just mail in the vote yourself.

Here's a map of the election by county. Trump has better coverage than Verizon. So you want the EC to choose Clinton because New York and Los Angeles did? The EC exists PRECISELY so that you can't skip everywhere else. I know it's not popular to say this, but it is the United STATES of America, not the United PEOPLE of America. It isn't just about you. Ironically, it was the small New England states like Rhode Island, Vermont, Delaware, etc. that insisted on this provision because they were afraid of being overwhelmed by states like Virginia and Georgia.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

All one has to do is look at the electoral map after the election to understand why we don't use "popular vote". Basically, you would have a hand full of states with heavily democrat voters, dictating the direction of the rest of the nation.

Truth be told, if we went by popular vote, Trump would have focused heavily on those states and likely would have beat Hillary. His strategy was based on the electoral college. In the past, republicans made maybe one trip to Michigan. The last few days before the election, Trump and Pence hit Michigan at least 3 times. It paid off.

I hope everyone realizes something here. The same vote that won Trump the election by electoral votes, is also the same vote and statistics that show Clinton won the popular vote (which means nothing). So when this lying "green party candidate" claims the votes may be hacked, using the example of Clinton's popular vote being so much larger than Trump's popular vote...IS USING THE SAME VOTES! In other words...if the numbers are wrong, they are also wrong for the popular vote.

The are the same counting procedure and outcome.

Do you want a civil war?
Because this is how you get a civil war.

a reply to: schuyler

I am NOT saying the EC should choose Clinton because NY and CA did. And that map is irrelevant to what I'm saying. What I'm saying would actually hold true even if Trump won the popular vote. However, by losing the popular vote, then what I'm saying holds even more water.

As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,”

James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.”

Trump is such a candidate. The Alt-Right is such a faction.

In other words, the EC was designed to protect against candidates like Trump and the Alt-right, whether he won the popular vote or not. In this case, he has so far been deemed the loser of the Popular Vote, which adds even more validity to the EC performing it's duty to stand in favor of the Popular Vote and against a candidate who would "violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole."

originally posted by: Dragoon01
Do you want a civil war?
Because this is how you get a civil war.

The right wing have been threatening this since before the election. I think the question is does the Alt-Right want a Civil War?

However, to your point, I believe this is exactly WHY the EC and President and Sanders and even Clinton herself are not strongly challenging this. I think they feel the threat of Civil War in the air, by the angry misinformed mob. The people James Madison feared... and I can't help but wonder if the founding fathers knew that having the EC actually perform the duty they were designed to (to vote against an In-American mob) would most likely start a civil war, by the un-American mob they oppose.

Say, you have a great idea! if they devise some illegal and unethical way of putting Hillary in then we can have another 4-8 years of politically correct, totalitarian, leftist deadlock, (like we have had the last 28 years).

a reply to: spiritualzombie
Why even hold public elections if they are going to override our vote? Let's just turn this into a dictatorship!! You have lost all common sense!

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: spiritualzombie
Why even hold public elections if they are going to override our vote?

Well, that's the debate. By not electing the winner of the popular vote, the EC would be overriding the winner of the people's choice.

a reply to: spiritualzombie
Will you give up the popular vote!!!! That IS NOT the will of the people!!!!! That is the will of two towns!

I'm stopping you are an idiot....there is no other reason you cannot grasp this simple concept!

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: spiritualzombie
Will you give up the popular vote!!!! That IS NOT the will of the people!!!!! That is the will of two towns!

I'm stopping you are an idiot....there is no other reason you cannot grasp this simple concept!

On one hand you ask why vote if they override our vote, and on another you say give up on the popular vote, and let the EC choose. You can disagree, that's what these forums are for, but you should also be able to see that in these rare situations-- AND PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS IS A RARE SITUATION, where the Popular Vote does not match the Electoral College, these debates WILL come up.

If Trump had won popular vote by over 2 million votes and Hillary was still elected, you don't think Trump and his supporters would be crying foul? The least you can do is understand the situation.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

Nope. I would not be complaining. I would be inquiring about illegal votes like he is stating now. It is an issue. The will of California should not be put upon the people of Wisconsin or vice-versa. This is nothing like 2000 either. It was one state that swayed the election. I mean, how about we recount some of the states that were won by Hillary by less than those they are challenging. It is a sick way to use the hurt of others to make money. Jill Stein collected more money on this than her entire campaign. Makes you wonder, no?