Yeah, does kinda defeat the purpose. It would probably work better if you could somehow only elect true independents who promised to vote for the candidate who won their state unless they felt an overwhelming moral need to do otherwise. But that’s not a realistic option.
I have always argued against the Electoral College. America has, except for the EC. the best and strongest democracy in the world. The Electoral College is antiquated and unsuitable for modern day America. We should be electing all of our representatives, including the President, by popular vote. The Electoral College is an abomination.
That’s not really what the expression “sour grapes” means. “Sour grapes” would be if Clinton supporters were saying “Meh, the presidency isn’t really any big deal, and wasn’t worth winning anyway.”
My justification has to do with one of the fundamental reasons for existing of the electoral college being to prevent populist demagogues from gaining power. That part of the point of the electoral college is to prevent exactly things like Donald Trump from happening - to prevent a pure populist, a demagogue who is fundamentally unqualified for the role, from taking office. If it elects Donald Trump despite that fact, and despite the fact that Clinton won the most votes, then that reason for its continued existence is null and void, because it cannot be relied upon even in the most obvious of cases.
So if the situation were reversed you support the EC but now you want to tear it down because your candidate won the popular vote.
Pick one side of the argument or the other. You don’t get to argue both sides. Either you support it or you don’t regardless of the outcome. Don’t forget what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.
People who are whining abut Hillary winning the popular vote and losing the EC are exactly like a race car driver who complains that their race car has more horsepower than the other guys car but he got across the finish line first.
The car race isn’t decided on who’s car has the most horsepower, it is decided on who gets across the finish line first.
Since I think the popular vote is irrelevant I would have no problem with whomever the electors selected. That’s the known system that everyone past 7th grade should understand.
Very well said. But hey the people wanted a more direct election and that’s been the trend.
Yes, but more importantly: Getting Trump electors, any of them, to switch to Hillary is impossible. The slates the parties put up to be Electors are party faithful. That one Democratic Elector in Washington who said he wouldn’t vote for Hillary did not say he would vote for Trump. That would be a kettle of fish of a different color.
However: The notion of multiple multiple Republican Electors, maybe even 19 of them, voting for a third candidate out of protest, like, say, Mitt Romney, is entirely conceivable to me, even now. Especially if Trump doesn’t behave himself over the next few weeks.
So we could still have President Mitt Romney after all, thanks to the EC. What do you think of that?
Bolding mine.
I think it would suck, but at least I would not be afraid for my life.
I think it would suck, but at least I would not be afraid for my life, and we wouldn’t have that cabinet of horrors.
My advice to the electoral college voters, if Madonna promises you anything to get your vote, get it a head.
First, Trump will have over 300 EVs, so it would take more than 30 to switch to Romney in this scenario. So, assuming that over 30 pledged electors change their votes to Romney to throw the election to the House, then twenty-six state delegations would have to vote for Romney for him to become President.
Did I awake in an alternative universe where this is even remotely possible?
WTF? I posted the exact opposite, but you leaped on one sentence like you had sprung a gotcha trap.
I have been against the EC for decades but I clearly stated that I was against any elector shenanigans under the current system, no matter who benefits,
Give me a fucking break.
I would say yes. But emphasis on the “remotely”…
Electoral College electors are not selected by the candidates, they’re selected by the party.
First of all, you can’t have it both ways. If it is constitutional for the EC to ignore the will of the electorate as a whole, it is just as constitutional for individual electors to ignore the will of the electorate in their respective states.
Part of the problem with this election is that the “crooked Hillary” meme gained so much traction that people foresaw scandal after scandal (real or manufactured) for the next four years and said “No, thank you.” This perception was reinforced by the (first) Comey announcement.
On the other side, people have a fear that a Trump presidency will be a disaster of unprecedented, nay even biblical, proportions. An electoral college revolt would have to settle on a third candidate. It would be nice if they could find somebody about whom a sizable majority of Americans, Hillarybots and Trumpanzees alike would say: “Well, thank God it’s not ______.”
Chief Justice Roberts comes to mind. (And he’d get two Supreme Court picks right away.)
What would be the point of having elections, if the electors can just decide to ignore the outcome?
Yes, I realize they can do that in theory and some have even done so symbolically. But do we really want a few hundred people choosing the President for us to be the actual practice?
Of course we don’t want to elect 538 wise men to select our next president. That’s ridiculous. The sane way to handle things if we really want to cut out the voters is to amend the constitution to allow the House to choose the President. This is the system in most countries in the world, and it seems to work much more reasonably. The majority party gets control, and they choose the leader of the party to run the country, and if they screw up then they lose control the next election.
That’s even less likely to happen than a constitutional amendment to allow direct national elections for President. And given that the current monstrosity of a system gives disproportionate power to the very people who would have to ratify abolishing it, it will never happen. Barring a constitutional crisis that results in a complete rewrite of the constitution from the ground up. But that would take a crisis on the level of the Civil War.
In a nutshell, this sums up the anti-democratic lunacy of the EC.
It wasn’t created to give greater voice to rural voters. It was merely an elitist safeguard designed to prevent the great unwashed white property owners from making an unsavory choice. They may as well have said “fuck it” and installed a monarch.
Well, Maine and Nebraska split their electoral votes, which any state could amend its constitution to do. I don’t feel like doing the math to see if Clinton would have won if every state had done what Maine does, or Nebraska does.
And a faithless elector will surely not be asked back. So they have to balance voting their conscience with remaining an elector.
I doubt that any Republican electors will vote for Clinton. What could happen is that some electors will abstain, and Trump will lose his majority, sending the election to the house. The house must select from the top three vote-getters, and I very much doubt that the house will select Clinton. The only way that could happen is with a LARGE abstention.