Welcome to the United States of Trump. 
The whole thing is labeled as Document 2. The actual Breitbart article starts on page 55.
It’s the Republican way. Haven’t you ever noticed how the right wing in this country considers themselves entitled to govern? Anyone else, anyone who beats a republican, is not qualified, or cheated. In fact, anyone who criticizes a Republican in office is just trying to undermine the administration. When Obama was president, all we heard from the nuts on the right was how he was “usurping.” The Usurper in Chief. All that shit. Trump supporters blather on about how we have real leadership now, and any blow-back is labeled as sour grapes or an attempt to undermine, as though he were President by right, not electoral vote count.
No different from Kiddy-Diddler Roy. He sees that senate seat as his by right and the only way that he could have lost, in his mind, is by nefarious means. Jones is just usurping. Democrats don’t govern in Alabama. I do. What the fuck is going on?
I say we just let him keep sputtering on the TeeVee and newspapers and websites and tune in every once in a while for a chuckle. Before you know it, we’ll be swearing in new Senate Majority Leader Pelosi and Roy will be rolling around on his back and kicking his legs in the air while he turns blue from holding his breath, before wailing, “But I wanted to be President!”
And who wouldn’t enjoy that?
Maybe not President, Jack, but if you (and others) haven’t noticed, the Alabama Governor’s Office is up for election in 2018. The incumbent is a Republican woman (Kay Ivey) who replaced the disgraced “Luv Guv” Bentley in April 2017, so she hasn’t run a campaign or been elected governor on the vote of the people (she is running in 2018).
Wanna bet who enters that primary? Or maybe he’ll try to get his seat on the Alabama Supreme Court back (it’s an elective office).
But I’d bet a nickle (hell, maybe even a dime), that Judge Roy isn’t done with the American election system yet.
Oh joy.
Alabama officially certifies Jones’s win: http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/28/politics/john-merrill-roy-moore-doug-jones-alabama-cnntv/index.html
Aaaand a CNN opinion piece on why Moore will never concede: http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/28/politics/roy-moore-analysis/index.html
Roy: America was great before they passed the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.
Black Voters: Hmm. don’t want that doofus in office. Better get out to vote.
Roy: Lots of black people voted against me! Fraud!
In other words, electoral cause and effect.
That’s a nice piece. A brief history of the relentless intolerance and bigotry of Moore. Also a bunch scary that the voters in Alabama would elect him Chief Justice twice! (Not to rain on your parade Alabama voters. Congratulations on bringing the hammer down on Moore. Please do it again should he ever run for anything else.)
I’m increasingly concerned about the electoral college and how it could be corrupted to hijack an election result. There were faithless electors in this past election, which went largely unnoticed, but it was an ominous sign going forward. Many of these voters actually voted against Hillary despite the fact that she lost. But if she had a close race and had they defected, it would have been pandemonium. I don’t see any way to remove this arcane mechanism either, as it would require constitutional amendment, which is something that won’t happen if a minority party believes it can be used to its advantage.
And yet he still almost won. His bigotry and intolerance were just fine with Alabama voters; almost half were okay with his predatory sexual behavior as well.
He could always run for a House seat - he’d be perfect for the job.
White voters: Good lord…I think I’ll just sit this one out.
Roy: Fraud!!
I dunno about “Ok”. They may have had doubt or they may have thought that that was long ago, and a Democrat in the Senate is today.
I dont think even a tiny percentage would think that behaviour is OK.
This proposal offers a clever work-around: National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia
The popular vote compact does not offer a clever workaround that deals with faithless electors. In fact, it may depend on the notion that electors are not obligated to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged.
Other way around, I’d think: The Compact assumes that electors will vote the way they’ve pledged; it just changes the pledges that electors will be chosen based on. Without the Compact, California’s (say) electors are the ones pledged to vote the way California voted; with it, they’re the ones pledged to vote the way the nation as a whole did. Faithless electors would be just as relevant.
Though, I suppose that if the Compact took hold, we’d expect much more lopsided electoral college victories, with over half of the votes (those from Compact states) being all for the same candidate, plus probably about half of the remaining votes (those from non-Compact states) as well. And once the Compact went into effect, more states might bow to the inevitable and join it too, making it even more lopsided. So a small number of unfaithful electors wouldn’t be able to swing the election.
Oh no! Not this again. 
Let’s start with some basics.
(1) In close elections, the cheaters will always have the advantage. This can be seen with 2000’s Gore v. Bush, or the recent close election in Virginia. Those proposing changes need to ask themselves: Would we prefer the best cheaters to win elections? Or would be prefer that the more honest side win?
(2) The fact that in a close election the popular and electoral votes might split differently is among the very least of our worries. The tens of millions who didn’t bother to vote at all had a stronger effect on the election than the electoral college system. Having an FBI Director with the moral and common-sense of a pigeon, let alone having a properly functional Democratic Party, would have prevented the 2016 tragedy. Yes, it’s unfortunate that the electoral college presently favors the wrong side, but demographic trends might reverse that for the next close election.
Clever?? This idea is so wrong-headed I hope Dopers will cooperate in stamping it out. Let me just touch on a few of the reasons.
(1) It is possible for the national popular vote to be very close even when not a single state is close. Would that be delightful? A nationwide recount with lots of chances for the cheaters to prevail?
(2) At present, turnout may not matter much. If a snowstorm keeps 20% of the Democrats in a certain state away from the polls, along with 20% of the Republicans, it won’t matter much. With your proposal, weather may make the big difference in a close election. (Of course none of these issues matter much in elections that aren’t close.) Cheaters will have opportunities in 50 states instead of a few swing states. Lawsuits, lying , voter suppression — all 50 states can enjoy them in your proposal, not just a few swing states as at present. Billions are now spent just in swing states. I guess the proposal would be a Job Creating program for the campaign industry! 
And most important:
(3) While the cheaters will be delighted if their candidate would have lost the electoral vote but wins in the system, what if that is reversed? Does anyone really expect a state run by cheaters to follow their own law if it keeps their man out of the White House? Does anyone imagine that the cheaters will not find grounds to litigate the Compact in a state? I’m not even a lawyer but I could think of at least three arguments to keep the courts tied up until the cheaters probably prevail.
Yes, I see that the Compact has wide support, though so far it’s been enacted only in blue states. That just demonstrates that “conservatives”, while wrong about most things, are right about one thing: Democrats aren’t very smart.
It would be much worse to need a nationwide recount, but it would also be much more rare, by an even greater factor. This kind of failure mode is not hypothetical for the current system: It’s real, actual history. In 2000, the fate of the nation really did depend on the impossible-to-determine result of a recount. This is the sort of thing that the Electoral Vote makes more likely, not less. In all likelihood, we would never need to deal with that sort of thing with a nationwide popular vote.
True, Chronos, but that really would be achieved better by just making it a true popular vote, rather than tricking up the EC.
I think you’d better check your statistics skill there, Chronos. 
The ratio between U.S. and Florida populations is only about 16 to 1. Moreover, since standard deviation is proportional to the root of N, comparable closeness is only 4 to 1 against.
Moreover, the Florida recount would have been irrelevant (and not undertaken) except that it would have swung the election. A which-side-won error in the national vote would, by definition, have swung the election: the recount would always be mandated, not just in the state-is-swinger case.
Ballpark-wise, the “need” for a Florida-type recount in the college system and the need for a (more expensive) nation-wide recount in the proposed system have roughly comparable chances. But the chance for mischief in the national recount is hugely greater. If I were a typical Governor or Electoral in a red state that had signed the Compact, I’d certainly leave no stone unturned in the quest for a favorable recount, and find cause to invalidate the Compact without a favorable recount.
Binomial distribution:
mean = np
variance = npq
standard deviation = sqrt(npq)
For an election:
n = number of votes
p = probability that a vote is for Candidate A
q = probability that a vote is for Candidate B
pq is maximized when p = q = .5.
So in an election with 130 million voters, the standard deviation in a nearly-tied race would be sqrt(130,000,000*.5*.5) = sqrt(32,500,000) = 5701.
The closest the Presidential popular vote we’ve had in anything like modern times was Kennedy’s 112,827-vote margin over Nixon in 1960.