First Republican 'faithless elector' announces intent to vote against Trump

[sethman75]

Id vote for kiefer sutherland.

[Omega10]

There is a growing subset of electors that are calling themselves Hamilton Electors. These comprise of people on both sides who are interested in voting in a republican who isn't Trump as a kind of compromise. Thus far, 8 democrats have commited to this, and while there have been signals from some republicans that they are interested, these are being kept very quiet as people very outspoken have already received death threats from both sides (though one more then the other). For the interested, here is a recent article about them on Politico http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...clinton-232195

For those who don't want to click, the article also states that Clinton has been completely quiet about these developments; they're organic within the EC and one of the electors even muses that it makes it easier for them to try to talk to other republicans about coming over to their side. They're edging toward Kasich so far (and I think he's their best bet since hes pretty much the only one left from the primaries that hasn't snuggled up to Trump in some way). He also has good approval ratings in his own state, and beat Trump in the Ohio primary.

If 37 electors in states pledged to Trump switch to someone else, then that does not necessarily mean Clinton becomes President. Most likely Kasich would be the 3rd place candidate, and then the House would select either Trump or Kasich. I think the odds of the House selecting Clinton are exactly zero.

We'll know in two weeks. It seems like Pense becomes Vice President either way (the Senate would pick him over Kaine).

[Healing Rain]

It would be the sweetest thing if the EC stopped Trump. It would at the same time accomplish sooo many things. Save the US from their biggest blunder yet, save it from it's own stupidity, self-expose the EC system as the travesty that it is, and shake up a shitty system in general that needs a shake up, badly.

The only thing that could go wrong then is, that it leaves the possibility for Clinton to be voted in. Then, the overall sweetness would have a heavy bitter aftertaste. For such a move to have an over all positive result would require a third candidate to win, since both top contenders are actually shitty non-options. (I have no idea how a whole nation could let their only two parties come get away with providing SUCH shoddy candidates. This is the true mystery in all of this.)

Crooked Hillary would only have an argument to be governor of California. As for being president of the United States? She would be completely undeserving of that title. She got less than 40% in almost as many states as she carried and was below 50% in almost 40 states.

[Deleted]

I will never stop laughing if the College gives it to Clinton.

Neither will I, it just shows how corrupt Clinton is.

[Kaleredar]

Neither will I, it just shows how corrupt Clinton is.

Nope, it'd be the electoral college doing their duty to vote in a candidate they believe more suited than the candidate the minority of voters chose.

The electoral college giveth, the electoral college taketh away.

[Deleted]

Nope, it'd be the electoral college doing their duty to vote in a candidate they believe more suited than the candidate the minority of voters chose.

The electoral college giveth, the electoral college taketh away.

Yes, by siding with the corrupt Clinton.

Also, to tackle the Bold part. The Electroal college exists to give power to the lesser populated states to ensure a Popularist doesn't ignore them in favor of the large hub states.

You're basically whining Clinton partied for New York and for California and didn't become president of the UNITED STATES.

[Daerio]

Do you guys really think politicians walk around with this idea in their head that they can do whatever they want with no consequences just because they say what the law is and they don't have to follow it? No. They still have to worry about the pitchforks at the end of the day.

[mickybrighteyes]

I will never stop laughing if the College gives it to Clinton.

That'd just prove Trump right.

[Deleted]

Actually if 38 electors in states pledged to Hillary went rogue and voted Bernie, wouldn't he be back in the ring? You know, in that inane hypothetical circus of an election

The Issue there is Bernie sold out.

[Elegiac]

Yes, by siding with the corrupt Clinton.

Also, to tackle the Bold part. The Electroal college exists to give power to the lesser populated states to ensure a Popularist doesn't ignore them in favor of the large hub states.

And yet it enables a populist to ignore most of the states for a selection of arbitrary swing states. Go figure.

You're basically whining Clinton partied for New York and for California and didn't become president of the UNITED STATES.

Because urban votes don't matter, right?

[Daerio]

And yet it enables a populist to ignore most of the states for a selection of arbitrary swing states. Go figure.

Except he won most of the states.

[ipaq]

Whiny liberal!

Oh, nevermind.

Using blanket words like "liberal" "republican" show us how really stupid you are.

Infracted

[Elegiac]

Except he won most of the states.

And? My point was that the Electoral college only 'empowers' swing states. Instead of California and New York deciding the election you get Florida and Pennsylvania. Everyone else gets ignored or, at worst, has their votes devalued.

But hey, why bother shifting to a voting system that encourages candidates to reach more broadly, right?

[Kaleredar]

Yes, by siding with the corrupt Clinton.

You're hocking that idiotic sentiment while trump girds himself in lobbyists and yes-men?

Also, to tackle the Bold part. The Electroal college exists to give power to the lesser populated states to ensure a Popularist doesn't ignore them in favor of the large hub states.

You're basically whining Clinton partied for New York and for California and didn't become president of the UNITED STATES.

it also exist, by the founding father's admonition, to allow a knowledgeable group of people to vote against the voters in their state and choose the president if they feel the public in their state chose poorly.

The EC guy mentioned in the OP is one of them.

And as it stands now, the EC only exists to empower swing states. The flyover states you're ostensibly afraid are being "marginalized" are still that-- marginalized-- in favor of states like Florida. The whole "well they could just get California and New York to vote and they'd win without the precious EC!" is also idiotic. Have you looked at the population breakdown? NnY and CA don't constitute 51% of the US population, or even close. You're defending an antiquated system for no reason other than the fact that it allowed your unpopular candidate to weasel his way into the presidency.

At least be honest with your prerogatives. No need to lie to yourself.

You'll get enough of that out of Trump.

[Viking]

You have to be a special kind of stupid to think the electoral college is a bad thing. Or just be a leftist I guess. Oh wait. Most of you kids probably think the US is a straight-up democracy as well so you probably aren't informed enough to have an relevant opinion anyway.

You're also delusional if you think your scumbag criminal of a candidate, Hillary, has any chance of ever being president. Nothing will change, leftists will keep throwing tantrums, but some of them will come around once Trump actually gets in office and they see he is not "literally Hitler" like the joke media has incessantly parroted.

Infracted

I've seen people spew insane amounts of negativity, vitriol, and profanity on the class forums and the offenders carry on forever. But this gets infracted. If that is flaming, then half this site should be fucking banned. Can't handle an opposing viewpoint can you? Of course the offending mod is a die hard leftist. Infracting people merely for offending your precious worldview is pretty pathetic.

[Deleted]

Well thats the idea, but they're allowed to change their vote in case this specific case comes up. Back in the 1700's when news traveled slowly, there was a thought that a popular guy could sweep up votes before the voters knew vital information about him that could have changed things. One aspect of the college was so a room full of informed, educated people could make the final judgement call on whether that had happened.

There were 157 other times an elector changed their vote for personal/political reasons, but its never been a concerted effort and never came close to overturning a result; except for once in the 1800s when votes were split crazily between 3 candidates. It was 1 vote away.

I did hear that our President Obama was thinking about taking up work where the districts could be re-drawn to have a better chance to come out as either result. I can't quite remember if it was an interview he did, but remarks were made that some right-leaning men in high places shifted some boundary lines years ago and 'did too good of a job'. If that is true, then maybe it would help, unless they tinker with it some other way.

This map isn't being shared much, usually Trumpkins like to show the stark mostly-red maps of which areas the republicans won, but this map is best because it shows more intricate details.





(Here are some things Alexander Hamilton said about the EC--this is why people are mentioning him so much lately. I got this from the petition's letter I linked a couple posts ago.

"In Federalist No. 68, Hamilton explains that the "sense of the people", must be expressed in the outcome. But, "Men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice," should make the final decision.

Hamilton pointed out that, "Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States".)

Im really not keen on the idea of better educated types reinterpreting my vote.

Seems...undemocratic to me.

Educating post though tyvm.

[Daerio]

Im really not keen on the idea of better educated types reinterpreting my vote.

Seems...undemocratic to me.

Educating post though tyvm.

I agree, the argument that our politicians actually know better than the public at large these days is a horse-size pill to swallow.

Perhaps in the time of Alexander Hamilton when politicians were significantly more educated compared to the population than today I would've been more accepting of this assumption.

Ivy leaguers haven't really been impressing me much lately; their ego is the only thing extraordinary about them.

[Deleted]

My understanding was also that these fines etc have never been challenged since they've never had to be enforced and that they'd be overruled by the Supreme Court as it is entirely within the rights of a member of the Electoral College. Might be wrong.

The right to appoint electors is a right vested in the states, not the federal government.
SCOTUS couldn't invalidate a law punishing a false elector, its wholly in the states jurisdiction.

[Draco-Onis]

This isn't Battlefield...this is real life...good luck with that

oh you poor soul, those exist in real life we use them everyday in the middle east and guess what they aren't being built on farms.

[SirBeef]

They're actually elected. That's what we're really doing when we vote for president.

Who elects them in the state of Michigan? In all my years of voting I have never seen one up for an election. The EC voters used to be elected by the public, now it is done by the parties. Another reason it should be done with.