Erm… since the Republican Party only dates to the middle of the nineteenth century, and was the party of capitalism, finance, industry and abolition, you might want to rethink that statement. 
I think what you meant was the South and rural areas have been conservative for all of US history. In 1860 the Republicans were the party of radical change; the 'Pubs have really only become the conservative party since the 1950s. Up until then the “Dixiecrats” were the party of the “Solid South”. It was the transformation of the Democrats into a progressive left that caused the Republicans to become conservative by reaction.
This is not accurate. We don’t simply “stop counting” ignoring the absentees. All states have a canvassing of the vote results over the week or two after the election to make sure the numbers reported on election night add up and square away and absentee ballots are entered into their final certified totals. Otherwise you’d have tens or even hundreds of thousands of deployed military whose votes would be plain and simply disregarded to begin with, and that is contrary to a federal legislation mandate. And if the election were “not close enough” to make the absentee ballots worth counting, they could not change the victor by themselves. If your advantage in a state is 60,000 votes and the absentee ballots are 40,000 they can cut it down but can’t flip it.
That language seems to refer to taking actions about national security and other matters that are in the federal sphere. The states over time have entered into many interstate internal governeance agreements or compacts of their own initiatives.
That said, the “popular vote compact” has had me in full :rolleyes: mode ever since they came up with it. That’s not how you fix whatever they think is the problem.
I don’t think that’s accurate.
We all knew what the system was. It’s been this way for a long time. It’s no surprise. It’s not at all rigged it just didn’t provide the outcome you wanted.
St. Cad wrote: “And why would the Trump electors believe that they would?” Because they’d have no reason not to given that the alternative is President Trump.
Oh, and Octopus, the fact that the system has been rigged since its’ inception doesn’t make it any less so. Giving greater weight to the vote of one individual over that of another might constitute a very definition of rigging.
It’s not rigged at all. You just don’t like the rules. We don’t live in a non federation direct democracy. We live in a nation that is constitutional republic that is also a federation of 50 states.
If the unfairness of Wyoming bothered me so much I’d move to Wyoming or another country. I don’t see the good people of California giving up those beaches for Wyoming. We all make trade offs in life.
One trade off was in order to have the potential of a united and more powerful nation the different states would have to compromise to get the thing going. That’s just how it is.
There is, however, an amendment process if something becomes popular enough.
That’s pretty much it.
As the Supreme Court observed, “The terms ‘agreement’ or ‘compact,’ taken by themselves, are sufficiently comprehensive to embrace all forms of stipulation, written or verbal, and relating to all kinds of subjects; to those to which the United States can have no possible objection or have any interest in interfering with, as well as to those which may tend to increase and build up the political influence of the contracting states, so as to encroach upon or impair the supremacy of the United States, or interfere with their rightful management of particular subjects placed under their entire control.”
The Court went on to say that the rule is that the consent of Congress is needed only when an agreement between states would “[tend] to [cause] the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.”
Virginia v. Tennesse, 1893.
The Pubs control the Presidency-elect, the senate, the House, and most Governors.
After this lunacy of grasping at straws, the finger-pointing…the failure of Hillary to take responsibility and everything that has happened since Tuesday…I’ll bet in a few weeks we actually see more faithless Hillary electors than Trump ones.
So it was rigged.
All of your profoundly obvious platitudes aside, it’s not just about this election.
This is comedy gold, though.
Sure. Use whatever loaded words you wish. The rules were clear to everyone who had an actual 8th grade education, which is why it’s extraordinarily disingenuous seeing talking heads acting confused on the news. Don’t like the rules? Work to change them. Petulance won’t help.
Another thing to consider in regard to eliminating the electoral college is resource pricing/allocation/exploitation. A great many of the country’s natural resources (oil, gas, timber, etc.) are found within ‘flyover country’. A system of governance that puts all the voting power in the hands of highly populated areas like south and central California and the upper east coast would not only see all future candidates ignoring flyover country to concentrate on winning votes in said highly populated areas, and favorable legislation surely would follow which would result in the country’s natural resources being exploited so as to benefit the more heavily populated areas in terms of supply and economics to the detriment of everyone else living in all the other parts of the country. Same with federal fund allocation for schooling, roads, highways, military bases and so on. Why allocate funding to build or repair highways in New Mexico when all the important voters want roads built in L.A. or New York?
Eliminating the electoral college would also do away with whatever influence senators and congressmen in the less populace states have. Why would president So-And-So have the slightest inclination to play ball with the senators/representatives from Nebraska or Wyoming when those states’ populations are of absolutely no significance in the next election?
All in all, I can see most of the country becoming a vast wasteland were the electoral college to be eliminated. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they created the electoral college and people need to think very carefully about all the ramifications before they decide it “isn’t working” or is “no longer needed”.
You’re like Leslie Neilsen standing in front of the exploding fireworks factory, waving his arms and shouting “nothing to see here, nothing to see here.”
People should be disgusted, it’s a disgrace.
You misspelled Russia.
This.
I think I’ve said most of this in other threads, but what the hey:
-
I’d be absolutely against any organized effort to persuade electors to change their votes. See #4 for reasons.
-
If enough Trump electors decided, without any undue outside influence, to change their votes to elect Hillary as President, then so be it. It wouldn’t be any less Constitutional than the EC tally trumping the popular vote in the first place. And as unprecedented as it would be, it wouldn’t be any crazier than the rest of this crazy year; it would just be the crazy cherry on the crazy sundae.
-
#2 is not happening. Fun to speculate on, but not happening.
-
The reasons I’d be against an organized effort to get the electors to change their votes, per #1, is that awhile back, it occurred to me that the EC being composed of people, rather than just being a way of keeping score, was one of the more hackable parts of our electoral process. And if the Dems, or anyone on the Dem side, did even a halfhearted effort at getting electors to change their votes, it would be the first step towards normalizing that sort of thing. And the next time we woke up the day after a Presidential election with the Dem having won the EC tally, the GOP, which is more talented at these kinds of games, would push that door open the rest of the way, and do their damnedest to change the result when the EC actually voted in December.
-
We really need to make our elections more hack-proof in a whole bunch of ways.
An argument seems to be that because it is theoretically possible, although unlikely in the extreme, that 270 electors could meet on December 19 and elect Jay Z as President, then that is reason to nuke the electoral college.
By that logic, the UK should absolutely get rid of Parliament since a majority of Parliament could, at any time, legalize genocide, or anything else imaginable.
Just because a particular system could possibly allow extreme results under absurd circumstances is not a really good reason to get rid of it.
Well, that would obviously be a mistake. They should vote for Kanye.
Good thing Hillary isn’t married to Kanye…I can just see Trump’s inaguration ceremony now.
I’m sure that’s an argument, but I don’t think it’s nearly the strongest one.
No, to reiterate my point, while I think it’s unlikely in the extreme to happen this year, I wouldn’t say the same about, say, the next five Presidential elections taken as a group. I really think that because the EC is obviously hackable, eventually someone **will **do it. And in general, it seems wise to hack-proof our elections before they’re hacked, rather than after.
If they elected Kanye we’d have a first lady we’ve seen naked pictures of, er, wait a minute.