There is actually a small chance Hillary could still win.

OK, something many people do not know about the electoral system is that 29 states actually have laws on the books to allow their delegates to exercise their conscience and refuse to vote for the candidate who won their state. They can abstain, vote for the other candidate or even write in a name. This is rare, and has almost never happened. There are delegates in many Republican states, like Texas, who actually outright said they will not vote for Trump with the Electoral College holds it's official vote on December 19th. One Delegate actually resigned his position over it.

If there was a big enough movement, and enough delegates either switched sides or abstained to cause Trump to go under the 270 votes needed to win outright, then Congress would be charged with electing the President. You arent going to get enough delegates to switch sides and vote for Hillary to give her 270 votes, but it is possible to force it to go to Congress.

There are enough key Republicans holding office now who are "Never Trumpers" that the current Congress could actually pull out a coup and vote in Hillary.

 

There've been several threads on this subject. Good luck and don't hold your breath.

 

The electors are Trump people, selected by Trump. They're not random people off the street.

It's doubtful they change their vote.

 

Several delegates in Texas and FLorida have already said that they will never vote for Trump.

 

If the electors pick someone other than Trump or Hillary, then the 3rd top vote-getter would also be eligible. As Johnson is a former Republican governor, he's far more likely to get Republican votes than Hillary.

It's also possible that the House can't decide by March 4 then it's likely that Pence would become acting President.

 

You kids with your contested conventions and other nonsense make me smile.

 

Sounds like it will never happen. However if it did, what do you think would be the consequences, and to you...................would they be worth it?

 

for those of you who are keeping your fingers crossed that hillary is ushered into office in this way, do you understand what you are asking for? in order to keep trump out of office it would take forty faithless electors acting in concert. in a nation where a huge percentage of the people are already distrustful of their government, this gives a clear signal that the rule of law has no standing on a national scale. after having endured one of the most acrimonious elections in our history, one that has divided our nation to its core, such a statement sends a dangerous signal to a citizenry already on edge. it tells them that the rules no longer apply, that violence is a viable alternative to the democratic process. are you really ready for that?

i'm going to ask y'all to try and be honest for once, at least with yourselves. you know perfectly well that trump isn't the racist, xenophobic monster you make him out to be, but you also know that such people are out there. they and others equally dangerous exist and are often held in check only by the rule of law we have spent over two centuries building. now add to them the perfectly decent folks who recognize that monsters exist and depend on the rule of law to provide them with some semblance of security. and you want to publicly tell all of these people that the glue holding our society together is a sham? the possibilities are a bit frightening, but i'm game if you are. just be sure you really want to go up against folks that are prepared for this eventuality.

 

Only Hillary and Trump are eligible to be voted on if it goes to the House.

- - - Updated - - -

Let them have their fantasies. The reality is that there have only been 10 faithless electors for President in the last 100 years. (there have been a few more for VP).

 

The self proclaimed "moderate" wants a constitutional coup lol.

- - - Updated - - -

Clinton better get her staff ready!

 

I don't want either Clinton or Trump in the WH, but OMG dude the fallout of them picking Clinton over Trump would be so (*)(*)(*)(*)ing epic I want to sign the damned petition just on principle.

The meltdown on Twitter would probably destroy the universe.

PLEASE, LET THIS COME TO PASS.

 

oh, i don't have any problem with these fools fantasizing. i just think they should understand what it is they are asking for. most of these people are much the same as those dewy-eyed coeds we all remember quietly bawling over mcgovern's loss. they were shocked and saddened, but eventually got over it and understood that it is all in the nature of the game. we now have the same sort of idjits hoping to overturn a legal election, governed by the same rules as they have always been, by the sheer power of their whiny little tantrums. it is evident they haven't the faintest idea the power of the genie they wish to unleash on us by uncorking this bottle. we are not as civilized as some would have us believe. we are predators by nature, even the weakest of us, and are capable of a great deal of destruction when that side of us is awakened. open conspiracy against the rule of law is enough to wake up many of those sleeping predators.

 

Agreed.

Let's review what Hillary supporters are thinking. Right now, the electoral vote count stands at 290 Trump, 232 Clinton. So for Clinton to win outright, she needs an increase of 38 votes. For things to be tossed to the House, Trump's count needs to decrease by 21 votes. The chances of either of these scenarios taking place is extremely slim. But let's just say for giggles that one of these did happen. What then? Everything is right with the world once again? Come on, people, take a look at the county by county map once again. You see all that red? It's there because for some reason, in those counties more people voted for Trump than they did Clinton. Now I understand that the people in Los Angeles and New York City and Boston and Portland believe that the rest of the country is made up of complete morons who have no right asking that their views be taken into consideration, but as undertheice says, do you really want to try and explain to people who voted the way they did because of a feeling that the people in government are not seeing to their needs, you really want to try explaining to them that you know better what's good for them? The Clinton campaign couldn't manage to do that, and I believe that's the line of thinking that ended up getting Trump elected in the first place. But you think this would be a good idea? I suppose this is the natural, logical conclusion of the left's constant belittling of those who don't see things their way. But make no mistake, the nation would not survive such activities...

 

And of course there is a chance that pigs will fly.

 

That would require EC voters to do their job.

The EC was set up so that independent EC voters would be elected, who would be learned and save the Republic from amoral pathological liars and con men with no experience the masses might otherwise elect.

But instead, the parties usurped the system and not it is just party lackeys in the EC.

Expecting the EC to do its constitutional job is a pipe dream.

Why we have it any more is bizarre, and just comes down to partisan politics.

 

They have already unleashed violence in place of debate and will stoop to anything to get their way. These special snowflakes have been coddled too long and too much and have never been taught that when you lose you still stay polite. They just are not prepared emotionally to lose and don't know how to handle it so are out protesting a free and fair election.

What is interesting is that when people protest like this, like they did in the 60's, it is generally viewed negatively by a majority of Americans. They are shooting themselves in their own feet and don't even know it.

 

The only constitutional duty the EC has is to vote and when to vote. The constitution does not lay out how they are to vote as that is up to the individual States and their parties. Some 20+ states have laws how their electors are to vote and some have penalties if they don't follow the law but generally there is no law other than 99% of the time the electors vote as chosen to vote as most are party loyalists and vote for the party. The fiercely liberal states have already voted for Hillary and you will be hard pressed to find enough electors to overturn this electoral landslide.

 

The Republicans have a 60 seat advantage in the House. Hillary would need nearly 30 Republicans to decide against Trump.

There's a small chance, a very small chance that it could happen. There's also a small chance that you'll win the lottery though.

 

At the moment you'd need more than thirty votes to flip it most of the states that allow that are already in the Democratic column already, and many more require their delegates by law to vote as the state voted which is most likely why the Texas guy resigned. So your small chance is, in point of fact, essentially nonexistent. Please note this same information is readily available on the other 1/2 dozen pipe dreams, oh your pardon, threads on this subject.

 

Alexander Hamilton described the framers' view of how electors would be chosen, "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated [tasks]."[28] The founders assumed this would take place district by district. That plan was carried out by many states until the 1880s. For example, in Massachusetts in 1820, the rule stated "the people shall vote by ballot, on which shall be designated who is voted for as an Elector for the district."[29] In other words, the people did not place the name of a candidate for a president on the ballot, instead they voted for their local elector, whom they trusted later to cast a responsible vote for president.

Some states reasoned the favorite presidential candidate among the people in their state would have a much better chance if all of the electors selected by their state were sure to vote the same way – a "general ticket" of electors pledged to a party candidate.[30] So the slate of electors chosen by the state were no longer free agents, independent thinkers, or deliberative representatives. They became "voluntary party lackeys and intellectual non-entities."[31] Once one state took that strategy, the others felt compelled to follow suit in order to compete for the strongest influence on the election.[30]

When James Madison and Hamilton, two of the most important architects of the Electoral College, saw this strategy being taken by some states, they protested strongly. Madison and Hamilton both made it clear this approach violated the spirit of the Constitution. According to Hamilton, the selection of the president should be "made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station [of president]."[28] According to Hamilton, the electors were to analyze the list of potential presidents and select the best one. He also used the term "deliberate." Hamilton considered a pre-pledged elector to violate the spirit of Article II of the Constitution insofar as such electors could make no "analysis" or "deliberate" concerning the candidates. Madison agreed entirely, saying that when the Constitution was written, all of its authors assumed individual electors would be elected in their districts and it was inconceivable a "general ticket" of electors dictated by a state would supplant the concept. Madison wrote to George Hay,

The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket [many years later].[32]

The founders assumed electors would be elected by the citizens of his district, and that elector was to be free to analyze and deliberate regarding who is best suited to be president.

Madison and Hamilton were so upset by what they saw as a distortion of the framers’ original intent, they advocated for a constitutional amendment to prevent anything other than the district plan: "the election of Presidential Electors by districts, is an amendment very proper to be brought forward," Madison told George Hay in 1823.[32] Hamilton went further. He actually drafted an amendment to the Constitution mandating the district plan for selecting electors.[33]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

 

Irrelevant.

 

Too late...Stop being delusional. The Constitutional process is what it is.

 

LOL, how is it possibly "irrelevant"?

You shouldn't use words of which you don't know the meaning.

 

Even if Hillary had managed to win the election fairly, given her personality and other ... problems... like drugs, illness, historical enemies, taking bribes from hostile foreign governments and just plain bad policies...

Even if Hillary were ligitimately elected, she would have had an extremely hard time governing.

If Hillary, at this stage, managed to pull off a coup, she would NEVER govern.

Gaining office by an EC/Congressional, It would be instant un-Civil WAR!

No! I'm not saying I would personally would do any of this, but others would, and we all know it.

So, report away, but I'm only telling you what would happen, so we can forget the possibility of a coup and get on with supporting the President-Elect.

Those EC deligates who voted her illegally into power would be murdered by bombs, snipers, fires, car crashes, poison... you name it.

Democrats in office in general would be dropping like flies.

Hillary, with the vast dedication and protection of the noble Secret Service, Might last a year or two, but in that time, she would only have the power held by a murderous tyrant.

Hillary could NEVER, EVER Govern!

And the Democratic Party would be killed to the last member, in time.

-

 

Liberal media is keeping this going because they want them to cause chaos. Give them false hope you know, just like they always do.