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

I am trying to understand all this, I really am. But I just don't get it at all. Only once in my life have I ever met a sitting VP and only because a State Representative that knew me introduced me when he saw me in the crowd at a campaign rally.

The reality is that very very few Americans will ever interact with political leaders and then only if they have put themselves in a position to do so.

I have zero delusions of Trump reaching out to offer me a position among the 4000 or so appointments in his administration nor do I feel Hillary would add my name to the Clinton Body Count had she won.

In the grand scheme of things who is and who is not the President doesn't change the outcome of my life one iota. Only I have that power. The power of choice and self determination. That said, appointment by chicanery and manipulations would raise my ire. And I am rather sure I would not be alone in that feeling. But a win or loss by honest means (that while elated or bummed by the performance of my side) would mean that I would accept the outcome.

If I wanted to be flippant, I would say the fracas post election is the fear of people actually having to work for a living because the gravy train is over.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: EvillerBob

Given that your nation is capitalistic in nature, and given that capitalist nations REQUIRE a certain level of unemployment in order to function, even those without work or on low paid work, contribute to the system in someway.

There needs to be a pool of labor. I agree. The principle of what you are saying - agree with that as well.

My issue is that principle fails when faced with the worst of human nature. In your world, all of those people are at least interested in being part of the labor pool. That fails the minute they are incentivized to sit on their backsides and suck on the government teat.

The poor are, once again, a slave class. Instead of being sent to harvest the crops, they now ARE the crop. The Democrats sprinkle equal amounts of sociological manure and welfare money over them (thanks, taxpayers!) then harvest them for votes and blindly loyal support.

The constitution allows congress to over ride the electoral vote if it is changed against the popular vote of a state.

Congress would then select the president by a 2/3 margin.


Trump wins.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: EvillerBob

ETA...we won't get into the semantics of 'unemployment' (i.e. people who want to work, are willing and able, but for whom there are no jobs) because this would tangle the theme up pretty quickly. However, the theme is good. Perhaps just add 'legally unemployed' to your exception list.

I consider "actively looking" to be a job in itself. I don't mind paying taxes to support the guy who's filling in job applications while he's looking for work. I don't mind companies getting tax cuts if that's going to translate into more jobs for that guy, either.

I think a lot of people don't understand that the EC can vote whoever they want. Also I think many of you mistakenly believe the EC was designed to undermine the vote of the people. This is not the case. This country is founded on the democratic principles... the idea of one person, one vote.

If you don't think a 2 million+ vote lead in the Popular Vote matters, then you don't believe in equal citizenship. You believe a person who votes in Wyoming should have 4 times the value of a person who voted in Michigan.

I disagree with that. I believe in the Electoral College and I believe in equal citizenship, where each vote has equal value to another. I do not believe a person should have the value of their individual vote penalized or rewarded based on what state they live in.

I understand the role of the EC, and in most cases the EC lines up with the Popular Vote. In cases where the EC chooses to defy the Popular Vote, it should have good reason to. In this case, the people voted for a reasonable, very well experienced candidate, who does support the values and principles of our country. I believe the EC should vote in a manner that upholds the winner of the people's choice for president: Hillary Clinton

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
...then you don't believe in equal citizenship.

I don't.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

Do Clinton, and then its all out war.

a reply to: EvillerBob

Well, I'm an American, so I believe in equality. I believe every person's vote should have the same value no matter which state you live in.

I also believe in the value of the Electoral College and appreciate the protections it provides against a mob election either fraudulent or one that defies the values and principles of the country.

In this case the winner of the popular vote by over 2.1 million votes, also happens to be the most qualified candidate of anyone on the ticket, and she represents the values and principles of the United States.

In fact many have said the current President-elect does not represent the values of our country. That his ideas of racial profiling, Muslim ban, and views on torture and the murder of innocent Muslim families of terrorists, as well as running a campaign where he threatened to jail his opponent and not concede an election if it did not go his way; a candidate who called on a foreign nation to commit espionage against his opponent to help him win--- that is the kind of runaway candidate that the EC was actually designed to stop and protect the country from.

Luckily the people did not vote for that person. They voted for the reasonable candidate who represents our values. I see no reason for the Electors to vote against the people's choice for president. They should uphold that choice and cast their votes for Clinton.

a reply to: spiritualzombie


There is nothing "reasonable" about Clinton, and if you can't see that the Hillary supporters are the mob that the EC was designed to protect against than you are delusional and/or willfully ignorant. My money is on both tbh.

So I guess you prove my earlier post true as it apparently needed to be explained again....you know the one that stated

deja vu, broken record, not a democracy, repeat after me, Hillary lost, please move on to step 5.......

repeating steps 1-4 like a record with a skip is not healthy man......you need to accept reality and move on.

And before you post your delusional view of what the EC is designed for again I will leave you with this......

repeating a falsehood 5000 times will not make it true.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

You so do not understand what the EC was meant to be... it was meant to prevent a couple large population centers from dominating the election... IE make sure the voices of the people that dont live in a large population center have a say as well. (you know make sure their vote counts as well)

Hence California wont dominate the election every year... and it barely does that.

Democrats get a 55 pt lead every single presidential election... and they still lost to donald fricking trump... maybe you should stop and think on that.

Because of California Republicans need to be perfect in a presidential election, and they can still lose without flipping a few democrat leaning states... trump flipped more than a couple.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

In 2014 it showed that millions of non-citizens, ineligible felons and illegal aliens voted. 2016 is suspected to be worse. Its high time the EC finally serves the will of those not living in CA and NY. CA and NY promote fraudulent voting. It is trivial to vote in multiple locations with provisional ballots. No voter ID means aliens and felons vote routinely.

i.imgur.com...

originally posted by: Diisenchanted
The electoral collage was set up to give the states equal power. The people are the ones that choose! Just because every idiot in California and New York voted for Clinton doesn't mean that we should allow them to dictate to the rest of the country.

WHO IS THE REST OF THE COUNTRY?

Someone needs to start a thread on exactly Who Is The Rest of the Country.

Calling Californians, New Yorker's, and other major city citizens idiots is getting really old.

People who congregate to the cities tend to be higher educated and more accepting of differences in people.

If you're in an area where manufacturing plants have closed, or jobs have left - - why are you still there?

Evolve.

a reply to: Annee

so you going to tell the american indians fighting the government on the pipeline to evolve? sickening elitism and family values and escape from violent crime is the main reason people who can often chose to live away from urban cesspits. also if a major event occurs (disease breakout, food supply disruption, power outage due to massive solar flare, etc) the cities will be horrific.

evolve? more like devolve and become dependent on a vending machine reality where food is dispensed like gerbil pellets.

originally posted by: mickrussom
a reply to: Annee

so you going to tell the american indians fighting the government on the pipeline to evolve?

Right.

I don't support the protest.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: spiritualzombie
Which would absolutely go against the Constitution and the Electoral college
Done
next

It absolutely does not go against the Constitution nor the Electoral College. The Electors choose who they vote for. They were designed not to dictate the vote but as a safeguard if the people's vote was not in alignment with democratic values. To vote for Hillary Clinton with be to uphold the principles of democracy and equal citizenship.

I actually agree with you in this debate. James Madison played a huge role in developing the Constitution and he desperately tried to pass a proportional electoral vote system, but was sadly denied. He knew problems, exactly as we face today, would rear their ugly heads. His foresight was incredible really. What we currently have is a system where one person's vote from Wyoming outweighs one person's vote from California when determining the final outcome. Where a person chooses to live in this country should not determine the value of their vote. The electoral votes must be divided according to state percentages.

I often hear the argument "why should New York and California determine the election?". This argument holds no water as one could say, presently the minority of the US controls every part of government. So why should the minority dictate laws over the majority? This moves us way too far from equality. It's a far more logical question than arguing about how New York and California have more people there and thus overrepresent the national vote. That's not a good argument to make imo because it does not answer to the obvious statement that presently we do not have a one to one voting system.

Also, with the scale so heavily tipped in favor of Clinton in the popular vote it appears that their is unequal representation among total electoral votes in each state. It's not that I favor Clinton. Personally, I don't really care, but we know the system is out of balance. It's silly to pretend like its not or argue otherwise. The gap is too large and its become too close to undemocratic.

originally posted by: mickrussom
a reply to: Annee

so you going to tell the american indians fighting the government on the pipeline to evolve? sickening elitism and family values and escape from violent crime is the main reason people who can often chose to live away from urban cesspits. also if a major event occurs (disease breakout, food supply disruption, power outage due to massive solar flare, etc) the cities will be horrific.

evolve? more like devolve and become dependent on a vending machine reality where food is dispensed like gerbil pellets.

No. Thats not why people leave the city for the country. Sometimes people just want some space. Whatever fits your narrow point of view based on hypothetical analysis.

Solar flare? Yeah you're confused. Never mind.

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

Yes, you are right, but is base in the fact that we have 50 states and the candidate that win the most states also tends to win the White house.

That is the fact Jack.

Popular vote in a nation that is run by a Republic meaning we got 50 states means nothing.

The states rules.

I'd like to point out there's a lot of diversity in those large population areas. In the middle ground states, not so much. I'm not sure exactly why people think individuals in less diverse, smaller populated areas are more important and should have more value placed on their vote. Seems to violate the principles of equality to believe people in CA and NY should matter less just because they live in a large city, and yet those are the attitudes I see reflected in this thread. This idea that CA should matter less because too much of the population lives there. How does that make sense?

a reply to: spiritualzombie
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE BUTTERCUP IS TO KEEP DENSELY POPULATED AREAS from controlling the whole country. it gives everybody a voice. you say she won the popular vote you are wrong but i'll not argue the facts with you.if you did things your way calidornia and ny would be the only ones that needed to vote because they have way more people that rest of country. yes the college can vote the way it wants and pay a small fine if it is against their states choice . but hillary needs to be president as much as bozo the clown. SHE IS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY SAUDI ARABIA HER WHOLE EMAIL SCANDAL WAS A SMOKESCREEN TO TRY TO HIDE THE FACT SHE WAS TAKING BRIBES FROM THEM TO ALLOW THEN ACCESS TO STATE SECRETS ON HER PERSONAL SERVER. its why she had to use military grade measures to erase emails including destruction of devices. when that was not enough she bribed lorretts lynch and fbi's chief investigator to kill the investigation. also she has been linked to piles of bodies. if the college puts her in office then the people need to rise up like the did against english and drag her out kicking screaming. she would continue the nonsense in syria by imposing an illegal no fly zone over syria and the minute we shoot down a russian plane it would be on like donkey kong all because her saudi masters want to run a pipeline through syria to turkey.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
I'd like to point out there's a lot of diversity in those large population areas. In the middle ground states, not so much. I'm not sure exactly why people think individuals in less diverse, smaller populated areas are more important and should have more value placed on their vote. Seems to violate the principles of equality to believe people in CA and NY should matter less just because they live in a large city.

I agree.

I do understand Representative Government and the purpose of the Electoral College.

But, things change.

The world and politics is more International then ever.

Yet, we've just let the Bible Belt and the Rust Belt pick our leader.