[Election] Electors turn faithless on their duty by not voting for...

Two Texas electors broke from Trump, one voted for Kasich, one for Ron Paul.

 

WOW.. Hillary is hitting legendary level loser status

Hillary Clinton will have the most faithless electors of any candidate in over 100 years...

 

Trump got 10 million less votes for him than against him, and his electoral college victory was historically low, really really low numbers in what he calls a landslide.

Did you see the numbers? Terrible. low. Not a landslide. Very poor interpretation of what a landslide victory looks like.

Fun facts.

The people have indeed not spoken.

 

Denial at it's finest

 

Ouch. When you put it that way....

 

I've decided to change my tune on the Electoral College. I've been arguing that it should continue to exist, and that our system is intentionally built to not be a straight popular vote. Well, the latter is still true, but the Electoral College should not be populated with real people. If the idea of having people in the EC is to be a check to prevent elections from going awry by having wise and honorable people make the final decision, it's not going to work. We don't know who these people are. We didn't pick these people. They aren't necessarily wise nor honorable. They are the creatures of their political parties. If a party won with a foreign agent on the ticket, their electors are not going to prevent him from taking office because they are captive to the party. Besides, if they did deny the will of the election by turning faithless, there'd be total upheaval. I don't even want to see them challenge an election. I didn't want them to deny Trump. There'd have been hell to pay. This is just a check that doesn't work.

What I'd like to see is EC votes divvied among the states like it is now. There are no people, they are just state votes that cast automatically. If there is a real problem with a candidate, the Congress can challenge it, and the Supreme Court can rule. After all, the SC picked the winner in 2000. We didn't let the wise and honorable Electors figure it out. Having Electors doesn't work.

 

It would seem that this is an unnecessary component of a time when remote communications were suspect at best. In a globally connected world I think you are correct.

 

I completely agree with you on this sediment. If anything, they are more likely to be rash and make bad decisions. Those who get selected to be an elector are often more charged in their beliefs. I really do not like the idea in which a very narrow EC victory can be over turned by a couple faithless electors.
More states need to bind their electors to the appropriate victor by law. I would also like to see all states split their EC.

 

Split EC vote is the way to go if we want to keep that dinosaur.

 

Loser is a poster who doesn't know the difference between it's and its. Dumb, like tRUMP.

You vote dumb, you support dumb. Congrats.

 

tRUMP didn't win popular vote. He is President fair and square, but you have the worst candidate ever in the White House. Not sure you should be gloating. If you voted for tRUMP, you should be embarrassed you voted for a dumb-as-rocks candidate.

tRUMP is a worldwide embarrassment to the great U.S. No debate. World can't understand WTF happened.

But, OK. 4 years of tRUMP. So, like conservatives since 2008, we get to sit back and criticize tRUMP for every little mistake, every dumb thing he does. Every single one. Get ready. tRUMP gets the same Obama-level treatment on here. He will be a shredded shell by the time we are done.

 

You actually criticized someone for misusing It's and Its....

 

If you are an "original intent" conservative, the "founding fathers" specifically didn't bind the electors to the state votes as a hedge against a dangerous demagogue, or another unsuitable person being elected.

See Tyranny of the Majority.

In fact, I've seen speculation that the punishment of "faithless electors" currently codified into various states laws could be subject to being overturned by the Supreme Court if they ever came before the court.

However, I don't think the founding fathers envisioned exactly the way that two political parties would lay down such entrenched battle lines, so I'm not sure it would work, in the instance where one might expect it to work (i.e. for about half of us, right here... probably for the other half, about eight years ago).

The most ever to split off was 63, and the impetus for that severe a split occurred when the candidate in question (Horace Greeley) had died in the interim, and had lost in a landslide anyway.

Regarding the Democrats breaking ranks, I would think it is much more likely to occur in the case of a loser with no chance of winning as a protest than it would be with a winner, where jumping ship could have some ultimate cost.

In any case, IMO, keep the bat **** crazy current system in all of its Byzantine glory, or do away with the system. Robo-electors sounds like "worst of both worlds" option to me.

 

Hahahaha...because you exert SOOOO much influence. Watch out Trump. babyicedog is going to critizize you and call people names.

 

Well, he has proven to the world that criticism of his person or persona rather, coupled with his sensitive and easily goaded ego make it effortless to ruffle his feathers and send him on a twitter spiral. Now, will babyicedog be the one to push him over the edge? *UNLIKELY* Either way, I am looking foreward to the press conference meltdowns and temper-tantrum vomit-tweets as are the comedians and SNL's of the world.

 

Well, I would say- of course, you= correct. tRUMP wouldn't care one bit about what we say here. But.....

tRUMP lets insignificant people bother him all the time. Maybe he WOULD care. The fact I can state that and it might possibly be true, that is what should trouble you the most.

BTW, it's criticize, not critizize. Don't be dumb like tRUMP. You= better than that.

 

Yes. Fragmented sentences- OK for CF posting. Spelling mistakes- shouldn't be. S.W.E. rules can be broken depending on type of writing. Like a novel. Or newspaper article. Spelling, though? No. Should know it's vs. its. Or you're vs. your. Or loose vs. lose. Or unpresidented vs. unprecedented.

Babyicedog choose to write in fragments. BC English not 1st language. Babyicedog can write grammatically correct sentences if needed. Babyicedog can write in Middle English, too. Dost thou understand? Can't write Old English, though. Very tough.

 

Nobody doubted this would happen. Why did you think this was news to anyone? Its not like anyone on the left has been handling anything since the election with class...

 

They waste their time. Protesting, trying to persuade electors- nah. Done. Finished. Move on.

But tRUMP = hold him accountable. Just b/c bar is lowered, doesn't matter. tRUMP lies. tRUMP is corrupt. tRUMP is, well, terrible. Not Eisenhower. Not Nixon (even w/ Watergate, still a good Pres.). Not Ford. Not Reagan. Not HW. Not W. And not Dole, McCain, Romney, etc.

tRUMP is bad. Rude, belligerent, nasty. Poor example. Most of all, dumb. Dumb is the worst thing. By far. tRUMP has it in spades.

Admire Republicans (well, most), dislike tRUMP.

Admire Democrats (well, most), dislike Bill Clinton.