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

originally posted by: matafuchs
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?

I have no problem with a recount in any and all states. Regarding Jill Stein, I tend to agree with you. It does feel like that, especially when you break down where that money is going.

But this thread isn't about recounts. Tho I'm fine with any recounts. It's their right.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

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.

Actually, de Tocqueville was worried about the politicians who realised they could buy the vote using the citizens' own money. Lavish welfare on the poor to ensure they have their vote forever.

Or, if you prefer to consider the rather more blunt words of President Lyndon B. Johnson (D) in 1963;

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference... I'll have them n*****s voting Democratic for the next two hundred years".

That is what scared the founding fathers. That is what the Democrat party represents. That is why so many people voted against them, and that is what the EC is saving the US from.

originally posted by: EvillerBob
Actually, de Tocqueville was worried about the politicians who realised they could buy the vote using the citizens' own money. Lavish welfare on the poor to ensure they have their vote forever.

Or, if you prefer to consider the rather more blunt words of President Lyndon B. Johnson (D) in 1963;

Actually, neither one of those people said either one of those things.

It's a cute argument against welfare though.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

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.

Violate the rights of what citizens? Illegal aliens?
Illegal aliens in this country are not US citizens, the Constitution does not protect them.
They are here illegally, therefore get them TFO and let them try to use the legal path to citizenship if they want to come here.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

OK, back to the electorate. I know that it seems 'unfair' as a person who voted in CA feels that they should be represented more than someone in a smaller state but they are. CA was a given in almost every race in recent years. Clinton should have campaigned more on the ground and in the states that she knew she was not a clinch for.

www.breitbart.com...

Like when she wanted to beat Bernie, I could understand it but how many times to she go to the smaller 'white male dominated' states? Not that much. She courted who she thought would give her the win and it did not work. That is why it is in place. Honestly, I always thought it antiquated till 2000 and I researched it some more and saw why it was there. If you want to change the electorate, make it 3 electoral votes per state. That sure would shake it up!

20x3 = 60 for Clinton
30X3 = 90 for Trump

Everyone is even.

originally posted by: RazorV66
Illegal aliens in this country are not US citizens, the Constitution does not protect them.

Yes it does.

Anyone within the jurisdiction of the United States has US constitutional rights, illegal or otherwise.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
Hillary Clinton has so far won the popular vote by over 2.1 million votes and counting. For the electors to choose Trump would be to veto the power of the people.

Two States already don't use the "winner-take-all" aspect of the Electoral College. To choose Clinton would mean that no States would use the "winner-take-all". Are those two States violating the Constitution or is it their right? Can any State in the country do this?

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: RazorV66
Illegal aliens in this country are not US citizens, the Constitution does not protect them.

Yes it does.

Anyone within the jurisdiction of the United States has US constitutional rights, illegal or otherwise.

They have certain rights but they do not have rights to have citizenship and benefits, such as welfare, SSI etc., just handed to them.

a reply to: RazorV66

No, they don't have 'certain' rights. They have all rights laid out in the US constitution. The US constitution doesn't give you a right to welfare or social security, those are entitlements. Not rights, much to my own chagrin.

a reply to: CryHavoc

I wanted to mention that a number of states used the Maine-Nebraska method in the early 19th century but dropped it.

a reply to: CryHavoc

I don't believe so.

Not sure if there are any hard set rules about how they apportion their electoral votes, so long as the winner of the state gets the majority.

I've got some homework to do...

originally posted by: Ohanka
Trump won over 30 states by winning the popular vote in those states.

The Warmonger won 18 or something like that by winning the popular vote in those states.

Your scheme goes against the desires of the majority of America to have Trump as President.

Apparently you need to read a dictionary to learn the definition of "majority". Mr. Webster defines a majority as;
a : a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total
b : the excess of a majority over the remainder of the total : margin
c : the greater quantity or share

So NO, the majority of America DID NOT vote to have Trump as President.

originally posted by: RazorV66

Violate the rights of what citizens? Illegal aliens?
Illegal aliens in this country are not US citizens, the Constitution does not protect them.
They are here illegally, therefore get them TFO and let them try to use the legal path to citizenship if they want to come here.

The Constitution protects all "the people."

It starts out "We the People". That's everybody, citizens, residents, legal aliens, illegal aliens, mosquitoes.etc..

All have almost the same rights granted by the same US Constitution.

Certain rights are reserved for "citizens", and when that is the case the text of the constitution explicitly says so.

Only "citizens" have the right to hold high office, like being President, etc..and since that is the case, the text uses the word "citizen" to make it clear, and distinct from the rest of "the people."

a reply to: CT_Flyboy

The only majority that matters a damn is the majority within each state. That's it. Argument over.

She who shall not be named won where she was supposed to, so too did Trump--both with majorities within those states. I'm sorry you, and others, don't like it. Really, I am.

Here is reality, Donald Trump is our next President, god help us all.

a reply to: spiritualzombie
a reply to: CT_Flyboy

Trump did win the majority - of electoral votes.

We do not elect our President via the popular vote and people who think we do really need to learn how the electoral college works and why. The US is NOT a democracy. We are a Constitutional Representative Republic.

If Trump drops below 270 electoral votes with Clinton the electoral College does not choose the President. The US House of Representatives will decide who is the President by casting votes for the top 3 candidates who received electoral votes. In this case only Clinton and Trump would be the choices for the House to choose from. Also the house would be broken down by delegation and not individual vote. So while CA has 55 electoral votes in a House action the CA delegation gets only 1 vote.

MI already certified the election so Jill Stein is SOL.

originally posted by: links234
Actually, neither one of those people said either one of those things.

Facts have no place in discussion of either religion or politics. They are both entirely ideological therefore immune to reason.

Clinton's team - It's over.

Clinton team shrugs off recount effort - Jill Stein's recounts have energized legions of hopeful Democrats. Not Hillary Clinton's closest allies.

Hillary Clinton’s closest allies are irritated with Jill Stein.

Most of the small circle of operatives and friends surrounding the vanquished Democratic nominee have no illusions that the former Green Party candidate’s recount pushes in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and maybe Michigan, will even come close to flipping the result of the presidential election. And they have no interest in handing Donald Trump another political victory when Stein’s efforts fall short.

Indeed, there’s no push to have Clinton say anything public about the recount — or even for anyone on the campaign side to weigh in beyond occasional blog posts and tweets from campaign lawyer Marc Elias.

The election, they know, is over.

Emphasis added by me.

Click link for article.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: RazorV66

Violate the rights of what citizens? Illegal aliens?
Illegal aliens in this country are not US citizens, the Constitution does not protect them.
They are here illegally, therefore get them TFO and let them try to use the legal path to citizenship if they want to come here.

The Constitution protects all "the people."

It starts out "We the People". That's everybody, citizens, residents, legal aliens, illegal aliens, mosquitoes.etc..

All have almost the same rights granted by the same US Constitution.

Certain rights are reserved for "citizens", and when that is the case the text of the constitution explicitly says so.

Only "citizens" have the right to hold high office, like being President, etc..and since that is the case, the text uses the word "citizen" to make it clear, and distinct from the rest of "the people."

Free speech, due process of law, unreasonable search and seizure are basically the rights they have.
There is no incentive for illegals to become naturalized citizens, it is too easy for them to skirt the law and just "stay" or "be" here and sit at the government nipple. Now before you tell me that they are not all like that, I know that are not all like that.
There are plenty of hard working, law abiding "non" US citizens here and those are the ones that should be given a easier path to natural citizenship. The illegals that break the law should be the first ones deported and not let back into this country and I am not talking about jaywalking laws or something minor like that, any type of violent crime or some of the hardcore drug offenders need to be deported and under no circumstances be allowed back here.

a reply to: RazorV66

Foreign nationals are entitled to the same rights and protections afforded to US citizens with very fed exceptions (voting / holding a federal job etc). Due process and equal protection under the law is a cornerstone of that.

When it comes to legal action though it falls under immigration law and not criminal law and the Supreme Court has held immigration law for the most part is immune from judicial review.

We move into the realm of a nations right to protect itself from outside threat and away from a persons right to defend themselves from another person. Its why we have some conflicting court rulings about search and seizure when entering the US at a border crossing.

Foreign natio0nalos convicted of certain crimes in the US or their own countries can prevent them from entering the US legally. The issue stems from administration policies of not enforcing the current laws and by releasing illegals who are in custody. The only exception im aware of when it comes to foreign nationals charged with certain crimes is the requirement that law enforcement / PA's office notifying the embassy of the foreign national to let them know one of their citizens is in custody and facing charges..

a reply to: Xcathdra

At no point did I say we elect based on Popular Vote. Of course we elect based on Electoral College vote. None of that is in dispute.

What I am seeing however is this false belief that Electors are nothing more than rubber stamps for the states, with no individual voting rights of their own. People seem to be totally unaware of the real purpose of the electoral college--- but also unaware of how unusual it is for a popular vote winner to not be elected president.

To help people out.... here are some valid rebuttals to my thread--- You might argue it would cause a Civil War for Electors to side with the Popular Vote. You might say, even if Electors also pointed out the lack of qualifications and impulse control issues and conflict of interest issues with Trump--- The un-American policy proposals; racial profiling, torture, murder, mass deportation force, market instability, national security concerns---- Let's say the Electors cited ALL of that against Trump, AND the fact Trump LOST the Popular Vote---- the only real rebuttal you can have is.... It could start Civil Unrest, possibly Civil War, or other destabilizing concerns and whether those concerns outweigh the concerns of destabilization and unrest under a Trump presidency.

That's pretty much the debate. In my opinion the EC should take note of how Trump is blasting recount efforts, the people he's bringing to his cabinet, how there is nothing good so far-- nothing to indicate anything less than a total train wreck for the country... And in light of all this, the Electors should exercise their right, AND their conscience, by casting a vote in favor of the people's vote. See what happens.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

Looks like the OP lacks knowledge about the working and intention of the electoral college. This OP would have looked a lot more educated if the thread looked like this "Remove the electoral college" because that would effectivly be the result of his suggestions and how he thinks it is intended to work.