|
Post by Angie on Nov 10, 2016 4:32:50 GMT -5
Been seeing a lot of comments about how the Electoral College could, in theory, go rogue and still give Hillary the presidency. I can be a pie-in-the-sky liberal, but even I see this as a pretty desperate clutching at a vanishingly tiny bundle of straws.
And they've started a White House petition about it.
I'd love to be wrong, but I don't see anything coming of this - and there are other, vitally important issues to work on right now. Like having a real, grown-up conversation about WHY so many people voted for Trump and WHY his candidacy brought so many people's baser instincts out to play.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Nov 10, 2016 6:11:12 GMT -5
Let's see; Republican electors are going to toss out Donald Trump and coronate Hillary? Not gonna happen. If any electors jump the fence, it's more likely to be for the team that actually had experienced Republican governors running on the ticket. But that's not gonna happen either.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 10, 2016 6:38:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 10, 2016 10:02:57 GMT -5
You know, I'm starting the think this petition system is actually a REALLY bad idea. People actually think they're doing something and actually expect that something might come from this petition or that petition, mostly because they've convinced themselves that most people see things exactly the same way that they do. Which is, I think, kinda why all the "experts" didn't see Nov 8th coming. The essence of Internet culture - an entire generation has grown up believing that clicking a button on an online poll is "Doing something" and that the voices they hear on the blogs and Reddits and forums they frequent must be representative of the population as a whole.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2016 11:45:23 GMT -5
Yes, I think those who pin their hopes on faithless electors are doomed to disappointment. And certainly, even if it did happen (which it won't) we wouldn't end up with Clinton in the White House.
And yes, it stuns me how many think clicking a like button or signing on to an online poll is "doing something," or that the results of online polls (especially at partisan sites) reflect an accurate picture of the world in general. And yes, that's a big part of why we didn't see this coming.
Frankly, I didn't see this coming either. But in my own defense, that was not because of democrats and liberals chanting support for Clinton. It was because of the mass of conservatives and republicans I saw condemning Trump. I thought Trump would lose many of the traditional republicans, those who were in line with George Will, Romney, and the like. Indeed, I think Trump probably did lose many of those people. But I think a rather large group of people stepped forward to take their place, and I underestimated how many of them there would be. And I think I overestimated how many of Obama's fans would step forward to support Clinton (whether enthusiastically or reluctantly).
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 10, 2016 12:55:35 GMT -5
The electors going to Washington are all pledged to Trump, right? So even if they all revolted, what happens? Do they cast it for whoever? Or can they all decide, Cruz! Or Bush! Or The Ice Cream Man! Ain't gonna be Clinton.
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Nov 10, 2016 13:47:53 GMT -5
I guess there are a handful of states, with about 165 electors between them, in which the electors are allowed to vote for someone else if they don't like who their state picked. But yeah - my first thought, too, was why in the hell anyone would think Hillary would be the one those electors would flip to. Maybe a small handful of them, but enough to hand her the win?
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Dec 6, 2016 14:44:26 GMT -5
Digging this thread back up in light of this. (Article written by an elector.) I really, really want to believe he can rally the electors with him. Even as a die-hard liberal, I'd MUCH rather see a competent Republican in office than Trump. But I'm still not holding my breath.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 6, 2016 21:02:51 GMT -5
I want to say "It is not going to happen - it's just not." But then, I said the same thing about Trump being elected.
So, we'll see.
But I really don't think it's going to happen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2016 21:19:44 GMT -5
It could happen. I'd love for it to happen. Alas, I don't think it's likely. But hey. It's 2016, The Year of WTF.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 6, 2016 21:23:25 GMT -5
I dunno. Seems to me it would open a huge can of worms. Every future election would have some people calling for this to happen again. It reminds me of jury nullification: it can happen, but it's not something to be held up as just another option.
The election happened. Trump won. Let him move forward. If he screws up royally, he screws up royally. Life goes on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2016 21:36:18 GMT -5
I dunno. Seems to me it would open a huge can of worms. Every future election would have some people calling for this to happen again. It reminds me of jury nullification: it can happen, but it's not something to be held up as just another option. I suppose the same could be said of the giant asteroid option.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Dec 7, 2016 3:45:57 GMT -5
I find it interesting that so many people support the "democratic process," yet are willing to throw it under the bus if they don't like the results. It seems to me that most people only like the "democratic process" if they're in the 51% that "should" control the other 49%, and that attitude seems particularly widespread these days. So how is this process supposed to continue to work if everybody's going to be a sore loser?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 7, 2016 9:14:31 GMT -5
I find it interesting that so many people support the "democratic process," yet are willing to throw it under the bus if they don't like the results. It seems to me that most people only like the "democratic process" if they're in the 51% that "should" control the other 49%, and that attitude seems particularly widespread these days. So how is this process supposed to continue to work if everybody's going to be a sore loser? I did not express any desire for it to happen. I only opined on the likelihood of it happening. I'm not really sure what kind of precedent it would set if the electoral college did actually upset expectations here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2016 9:28:24 GMT -5
I find it interesting that so many people support the "democratic process," yet are willing to throw it under the bus if they don't like the results. It seems to me that most people only like the "democratic process" if they're in the 51% that "should" control the other 49%, and that attitude seems particularly widespread these days. So how is this process supposed to continue to work if everybody's going to be a sore loser? 1) the population at large does not always make wise decisions. The founders didn't think so either, which is one reason we have an electoral college. (Cite to follow when I get to my desk.) 2) actually, in this case, 2 million more people voted Clinton than Trump. So if we were going on a purely democratic process, Trump wouldn't be president. eta: not at my desk yet, but let's see if I can't do this cite thing on my phone. www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/
|
|