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

[jimboa24]

Congress, probably. At which point they might just vote for Pence, Ryan, or Romney.

It doesn't matter. All that matters is who gets the majority of Electoral votes. 270 is the magic number assuming there are only two candidates. If there are three, then you don't need 270, just the majority.

In all honesty, even with faithless electors, it's highly unlikely that Trump will not win the Electoral votes needed. So far, seven Democratic Electoral voters (votes that would be going to Hillary anyways) have announced they will be voting for someone else, which actually only helps Trump. The one Republican voter not voting for Trump on his own isn't going to do a thing to stop Trump's inauguration. There would have to be a very serious and more organized, concerted effort than what we're seeing to pose a serious threat to Trump's presidency. Plus, it's never happened before in our nation's history, and if it did happen...well, things would get ugly. So ugly that the protests and riots after Trump's win would pale in comparison.

That being said, these are strange times. I think it's highly unlikely that Trump won't secure more than enough Electoral votes needed, but considering everything else that happened this year...all bets are off. Anything can happen.

[Kalis]

"Safe regions" are a product of the electoral college, not FPTP.

The electoral college is still a form of FPTP, done on a State-wide basis. FPTP makes safe regions, that is one of the issues with FPTP, we have this come up at every General Election in the UK.

You clearly don't know what FPTP is.

[Darkfriend]

Congress, probably. At which point they might just vote for Pence, Ryan, or Romney.

They have to chose from the 3 presidential candidates who received the most electoral votes. So Clinton and Trump are the only options.

[cubby]

It doesn't matter. All that matters is who gets the majority of Electoral votes. 270 is the magic number assuming there are only two candidates. If there are three, then you don't need 270, just the majority.

No, just . . . no. Wrong. You cannot keep posting your ignorance and idiocy. Read even the previous two pages and you'll see your errors.

- - - Updated - - -

They have to chose from the 3 presidential candidates who received the most electoral votes. So Clinton and Trump are the only options.

Again, no. Read, learn, then post. Please.

[Alvito]

Very interesting.

I wonder. Purely hypothetical HOWEVER, what happens if neither of them gets 270?

If nobody gets 270 congress jumps in and picks out of other eligible candidates.

[Alvito]

Unless faithless electors cast their votes for Hillary, this is all a pointless protest. Even if enough defect that Trump isn't elected by the EC, the House will vote him in.

Why would they do that when they can pick from a larger list of people that will do what they want and not be such a headache for them?

[Auxora]

Way too many would need to change their votes for this to be much of an issue. A handful might, but not nearly enough to affect the outcome.

[Alvito]

Pretty much. It is very, very highly unlikely they'd ever allow Hillary Clinton into office. So the next best (for them) would be Pence. Unfortunately, Pence is arguably worse than Trump.

Of course they aren't going to pick Clinton, but there are other choices it isn't just out of the two of them if it gets to that point. Electors not voting for Trump would almost certainly not vote for Pence either. While people think the votes are linked you are actually voting for each separately since they are different offices.

- - - Updated - - -

Way too many would need to change their votes for this to be much of an issue. A handful might, but not nearly enough to affect the outcome.

Now it had to be people in the right states but 18 had to not vote for Trump and he would fall short of 270. While it is insanely unlikely and would open up a Pandora's box of bull shit, some would say the same is true of letting Trump hold office.

[Kalis]

No, you don't. FPTP and popular vote are not mutually exclusive. Popular vote could use FPTP, IRV, or any other voting system out there.

Oh my fucking God! I even pointed out that I am talking about what happened, NOT what might have happened under a different system.

What are you talking about? It is not about the relative merits of different systems, it is about what happened.

The person I responded to used results from an FPTP system to make a claim that Clinton won the popular vote. My point is that using votes cast under a FPTP system, to make a claim about how a popular vote would have gone, is ignorance of FPTP, which it is.

Nobody knows who would have won under a popular vote system, we don't have that data.

I appreciate that English is not your first language, but I spelt it out for you.

[Alvito]

I remember how quick the establishment was to start licking his boots once he won the primary too.

They have to if they want to do anything in the next 4 years. You don't have to get along to kiss the ring. Trump has even done it himself, he has surrounded himself with people he said were unfit to do anything, Carson being the newest to the list.

[Dextroden]

They have to if they want to do anything in the next 4 years. You don't have to get along to kiss the ring. Trump has even done it himself, he has surrounded himself with people he said were unfit to do anything, Carson being the newest to the list.

I don't know why people are shocked by this kind of shit. Romney was a vulture capitalist that was going to bankrupt the country. Until he won the nomination and became the great white hope for conservatives.

- - - Updated - - -

And I told you that the EC is why the popular vote doesn't matter, not FPTP, which for some strange reason you keep talking about as though it's mutually exclusive with the popular vote.

So, it's still winner takes all so the loser can complain. Brilliant.

[Kalis]

And I told you that the EC is why the popular vote doesn't matter, not FPTP, which for some strange reason you keep talking about as though it's mutually exclusive with the popular vote.

So explain how FPTP produces an accurate record of the popular vote, bearing in mind the two issues I pointed out with FPTP systems, which distort knowing what the popular vote would have been.

If one person doesn't bother to vote due to FPTP, that otherwise would have done so, or casts a protest vote for a similar reason, then your argument fails and so you need to show that nobody at all does that.

Good luck with that.

We have the exact same issues in Britain, we don't use an electoral college system, we use FPTP, so your argument that the electoral college system is to blame is a nonsense. Then again, you don't apparently know what FPTP is.

[cubby]

Why would they do that when they can pick from a larger list of people that will do what they want and not be such a headache for them?

The list would only include one new person, vis a vis the rules surround the voting process if the EC doesn't vote 270 or more for one candidate.

- - - Updated - - -

Way too many would need to change their votes for this to be much of an issue. A handful might, but not nearly enough to affect the outcome.

Just need about 37 (currently) or so to change their vote to anyone but Trump. The key is that they have to be already designated Trump.

[GreenJesus]

Besides the SNL thing and Hamilton I don't really see what he has done wrong. The Taiwan call is just China being a bitch and it has been blown up way too far. Carrier is a positive regardless of what liberal media tells you. Keeping 1000 jobs and the factory in America means tens and tens of millions over 10 years instead of the 7. His deal made a profit for our country and kept jobs. Besides that what has he done? Told the press that tried to destroy him to fuck off?? If CNN and MSNBC get salty then I'm happy. If Megyn Kelly from Fox is salty then I'm happy. It means he is doing something right.

[cubby]

Besides the SNL thing and Hamilton I don't really see what he has done wrong. The Taiwan call is just China being a bitch and it has been blown up way too far. Carrier is a positive regardless of what liberal media tells you. Keeping 1000 jobs and the factory in America means tens and tens of millions over 10 years instead of the 7. His deal made a profit for our country and kept jobs. Besides that what has he done? Told the press that tried to destroy him to fuck off?? If CNN and MSNBC get salty then I'm happy. If Megyn Kelly from Fox is salty then I'm happy. It means he is doing something right.

Would it matter if we started pointing it all out to you? Would you believe anything we said? Do facts matter to you any more?

[Dextroden]

Would it matter if we started pointing it all out to you? Would you believe anything we said? Do facts matter to you any more?

I could ask the same thing about people who think the Nazis and camps are coming.

[zenkai]

I think all I ever see you post is hypothetical hypocrisy.

My favorite past time is show people how they are hypocrites, we need less of them in the world.

[The Emperor]

Isn't winner takes all "ignoring the people"?

If 51% vote for A then the 49% that voted for B het ignored.

P.S. stop being a keyboard warrior, you wouldn'd do jack shit except moan and complain on online forums if Trump was not picked.

P.P.S Clinton won the most votes this election. "The people" are being ignored.

Stop assuming who I am. Actually scrap that, do continue with your assumptions, they make me laugh. But Trump won didn't he, and that crook Clinton lost.
And no one cares for California or New York that much, definetely not the rust belt states, and since electoral college has its purpose of not letting people from most populous states win every election, it is only fair.
But don't start the how electoral college is unfair thing because it handed democrats asses back to them, we've got another thread for those sore losers. Oh and since you're so keen on assumptions, I'd assume you wouldn't be complaining about EC system if that crone won. Jeez the idea of her winning sends shivers down my spine

[cubby]

I could ask the same thing about people who think the Nazis and camps are coming.

You should ask that of those people.

[Edge-]

The Taiwan call is just China being a bitch and it has been blown up way too far.

It's what conservatives have wanted for years (thumbing their nose at China) but it's not been done specifically because it's not worth the risk. Taiwan absolutely deserves more recognition, but it's not in the best interests us the US right now to stir up that pot.

Carrier is a positive regardless of what liberal media tells you.

Except that it's interventionalist nonsense that runs contrary to the GOP's love of unfettered, unregulated capitalism. Palin was unintentionally correct, it is croney capitalism and steps towards socialism (taxpayers footing the bill for the $7M tax break that they're getting over 10 years).

Not to mention it's keeping a paltry number of jobs, it a deal exclusively with Pence/Indiana and Trump/federal government have nothing to do with it.

What's going to happen when it's a company in a state where the VP elect isn't the governor? Are they going to negotiate with every company that wants to move jobs out? If so, what's to stop companies from threatening to do so just to get tax deals? Will this kind of intervention into the free market extend into other areas of the economy?

It's great for the less than half the employees who are going to keep their jobs, but overall it's not a great decision.

Keeping 1000 jobs and the factory in America means tens and tens of millions over 10 years instead of the 7.

It will just be other taxpayers paying for that tax break. You know, corporate welfare and all that fun stuff : D

His deal made a profit for our country and kept jobs.

This is yet to be seen.

Besides that what has he done?

Appointed a number of dangerously unqualified people to head up major federal agencies. Cozied up to ex-bank executives directly involved in and responsible for the recent recession, appointing many of them to federal positions. Appointed conspiracy theorists to top positions. Proposed painfully idiotic policies like removing two regulations for every new regulation they put in place.

I could go on, and that's not touching his continued unprovoked pathological lying on Twitter.

Told the press that tried to destroy him to fuck off?? If CNN and MSNBC get salty then I'm happy. If Megyn Kelly from Fox is salty then I'm happy. It means he is doing something right.

It's not when he's literally threatening the First Amendment protection of freedom of the press.

But Trump supporters only seem to care about the First Amendment when it comes to protecting their right to spew hateful rhetoric a debunked conspiracy theories, and for everything else fuck it.