Well, sure. So, just to throw a hypothetical out there: it’s DIE HARD on Air Force One, and President Harrison Ford is taking back his plane; how would that go?
Interesting, only 3 comments for “give it to Hillary,” despite it being No. 1 in polling preference.
8 comments for “Give it to Trump by the book.”
The EC changing the election would represent a real and significant existential threat to the country, putting the US at risk of internal violence, breakdown of civil society, and loss of faith in our democracy. But we would probably survive without too much harm and we’d almost certainly reform our election system to make it more democratic, transparent, and robust.
A Trump presidency also represents a real and significant existential threat. He also puts the US at risk of internal violence, breakdown of civil society, and loss of faith in our democracy. There is also a very tiny but real risk that he will destabilize the planet in a way that could have serious consequences, including nuclear war. Conversely, there is a larger but still very small chance that another administration would take steps that meaningfully combat climate change, which Trump will probably make worse.
It’s a tough choice. I wouldn’t want to be the one to decide to upend one of the basic conventions of our system of government responsible for the smooth transition of power. OTOH, at least it wouldn’t be going rogue to overturn the popular vote, which would be much, much worse.
On the whole, I think I’d go with the EC electing Clinton (however unlikely that is), with the Romney outcome a second choice.
edit: nm
Have you seen Ford lately? He’s not going to be kicking anyone out of the emergency exit, and it seems like he crashes aircraft more often than he successfully lands them.
What if he’s elected as the President, only to come back from an emergency meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to find his wife brutally murdered in the White House master suite and observes a one-armed man escaping across the lawn, unseen by Secret Service or surveillance cameras?
I didn’t vote in polls 'cause I think they are pointless, but just to make it clear I’d far prefer that Clinton takes the election because even though I think she is wrong or deceitful on a large number of issues, she is, in the words of P.J. O’Rourke, “wrong with normal parameters”. I trust that she’ll surround herself with reasonably intelligent advisors that have some version of doing what is best for the country and not filch everything not nailed down. Trump, on the other hand, will do his level best to bankrupt the country (because that is what he does) while giving access to critical government functions and high level advisory positions to nut jobs like white nationalistic sympathizer Steve Bannon and climate change denier Myron Ebell.
Stranger
I really, really do think any talk about a revolt or revolution in the event of the EC awarding the presidency to Hillary is vastly overblown. There’ll be shooting or riots, for sure, but no civil war.
This type election consternation could be easily avoided if campaigns simply focused more on the Voter Turnout issue.
Yep. I hate the SOB like poison, but this isn’t the answer.
+1
The foggy aging grey matter seems to recall a quote from Chris Patton, the last Governor of Hong Kong along the lines of:
“It’s not that the Chinese government have a problem with elections per se, rather that they’d really prefer to know the results in advance”
I voted for a preference for Clinton because I’m not American and I care about the world. I really don’t care, per se, about the American political process. Trump is dangerous to the world and therefore I prefer him not to be President.
I agree the Electoral College isn’t democracy. But right now the Electoral College has a democratic leash on it. And some people are foolishly suggested we take the leash off and let the Electors run wild.
People aren’t suggesting Hillary Clinton can get elected because she won the majority of votes in the general election. They’re suggesting that she can get elected because 538 Electors are free to ignore the general election and choose whoever they want. That’s not democracy in any normal sense of the word.
Would people have been okay with it if the Electoral College had decided to ignore the outcome of the 2012 election and elect Romney instead of Obama?
If one player wins more points and games in a tennis match, but the other wins 3/5 sets, you would say that the former really won? I don’t think so.
All this conversation seems to me to miss the main point of democracy. The advantage of democracy is that it allows for peaceful transition of power. It’s an alternative to a coup. The fact that the “wrong” (in your opinion) team won is a feature, not a bug. Even if it’s objectively proven that Trump as president will lead to measurably worse outcomes than Hiliary (which I actually think is likely), it beats having armed revolution.
The problem is not that Trump won. That is a side effect. If democracy was not in place, then Trump’s supporters would simply grow even more disgruntled until violent revolution takes place. The issue we should really be looking at is why Trump’s supporters are angry, and how we can change that. And even if we can’t, how we can minimise the damage caused by Trump, while still maintaining the legitimacy of the democratic system. You want Trump’s supporters to feel empowered, that’s the point of democracy.
Democracy is the ultimate in bread and circuses.
Tough question. It reminds me of the “if you were in a sinking boat and could only save your brother or sister, which one do you choose?” The answer is “Easy: I am never going to have to make that choice, so I am not going to lie awake at night worrying about who I pick.”
But I’m gonna go for “by the book” for reasons already expressed by posters above me.
Massive voter fraud is shown, the Russians hacked our votes and swung the election to Trump. The EC has no choice but to vote Clinton in.
n.m.
I detest Trump, but it’s not the job of the Electoral to vote in any way other than they were directed to. I don’t like protect votes and I don’t want them making up their own mind.
Now, if there’s something dramatic like widespread voter fraud, OK, maybe. But I’d pretty much want to see a court ruling say “The vote was invalid. Electors, please vote for whoever you want to.” Unless instructed to use their discretion, electors shouldn’t be.
It is aesthetically appealing that we now have 100 votes in the poll, no more no less, so that each vote tally represents the exact percentage 
I voted “Outcome reversed” as what I would like to happen, in a genie-with-three-wishes sense, but “Hamilton electors” is a close second for me. The Electoral College choosing a moderate Republican is (a) way more likely than GOP electors flipping to vote Clinton, (b) less problematic vis a vis democracy than a party flip, and © a plain and unambiguous rebuke of Trump, because it would not be a party flip.
I don’t like the idea of the Electoral College. And as an American, I don’t like the idea of being governed by a monarch, even if only notionally with Parliament actually governing. But just as the Queen can deny Royal Assent to a bill in extremis, with the risk that the power will then be taken away, the Electoral College (having been created to be an intermediary body between the voting public and the Presidency, to exercise its own discretion) is similarly able to vote for who it wants in extremis. The Queen, and the electors of the present Electoral College, decide for themselves in his or her own conscience, political acumen, sense of history, etc. what constitutes in extremis. Electing a Republican is clearly not, but IMHO electing Donald Trump is. I doubt in the end enough electors will agree with me, but the power is right there in the Constitution.
(As to democracy, our Constitution is not and has never been fully democratic. While it has become more democratic, it will never be wholly democratic – one adult citizen, one vote – as long as we have a Senate with two Senators from each state regardless of population. I don’t advocate abolition of the Senate as it is, but merely note that the Constitution was intended to create a viable federal government with democratic elements, not a democracy as such. YMMV on whether the Electoral College is a feature like two Senators per state or a bug to be fixed like state legislatures appointing Senators, but IMHO the system is what it is until we decide otherwise by amending the Constitution.)