Electoral College Revolt Growing Into 'Powerful Show of Force'

Are you really blind to your fellow liberals' tears? Do you pretend these childish games are anything but? Attempting to 'persuade' elector's to change their vote, a duty in which they agreed to follow through on is nothing but petty viciousness. It shows an absolute an utter lack of integrity, well no surprise that liberals would be knee deep in that, but really, what is this country coming to?

 

The Electoral College was inserted, after much thought, to make sure that our nation was NOT a pure democracy (where two wolves and a lamb vote on what's for dinner). And that larger states did not dominate national elections purely due to their size alone, your revisionist view of things, not withstanding.

You realize presidents are not elected purely on the popular vote...right? How long must we go over this?

Trump was, and is, the much better choice to make with a mendacious
money grubbing globalist, that would be Hillary, as the alternative.
Your sour grapes are tiresome but funny considering how the left outsmarted itself.

 

These are the reasons the American people gave democrats the finger, during the election.

They point the finger at wiki leak hackers, instead of taking accountability for their own actions.

The hackers didnt rig the democrat primaries, the democrats did.

The hackers didnt lie to the American people, the democrats did.

The source who exposed the lying and cheating by the democrat party, arent to blame...

The lying cheating democrat are....

 

Respecting the Constitution is now a "utter lack of integrity" to you know? My how times have changed.

Well its no surprise that conservatives would be knee deep in that, but really, what is this country coming to?

The electoral college was set up by the founders to protect the country from charlatans and con men and foreign influence with independent electors.

It has been bastardized to be comported by elite establishment party lackeys.

The electors would be doing their constitutional duty for a change if they selected Clinton instead of Donald.

 

Lol...It couldn't happen to a more deserving person.

 

I am not a big Trump enthusiast but he won the election fair and square. It is disgraceful and sickening to watch the way the hypocritical Democrats are trying to roll the whole electoral system because their candidate did not win according to the rules that have been in place in this country for many years. How many times did we ever hear Democrats complain about the electoral college until Trump won because of it. And the recount only showed that Trump added a few dozen votes to his count. Stein and Hillary Clinton have made themselves look like idiots because of these stupid tantrums that Democrats are throwing. If they don't like the Electoral College they should amend the Constitution to get rid of it or shut up.

 

About 3 million more Americans voted for Clinton than Donald, if you hadn't heard.

How exactly in your view is that giving them the finger?

 

If electors are supposed to vote their conscience, why to we have an election? Why aren't the electors allowed to "vote their conscience" on the spot?
The premise of your assertion is either flawed, or invalidates the concept of elections entirely.

 

How does living in a large coastal city make you an "elite" exactly?

That's the most bizarre definition of the word I've ever heard.

 

lol as if....

Records: Too many votes in 37% of Detroit’s precincts

 

No, about 3 million more Californians and New Yorkers voted for trump. They aren't the only states in America you know.

 

There may be one or two EC's who actually do vote their conscience and if there was a handfull I woukd be totally shocked. Get over it the Trumpeizda will be thus country's POTUS whether you lie it or not. Even I cannot change that.

 

No. In a "pure democracy" the people would vote on every law and rule. We have a representative democracy where our government is run by representatives.

The founders were concerned that the people could be tricked by con men and charlatans or corrupted by foreign influence. So they developed the system of independent electors to vote.

Which has been completely bastardize by the establishment elite.

Exactly what language in my post gave you the impression I didn't realize that?

You mean the guy described as "utterly amoral," a "pathological liar" "fraudster," “narcissist" "phony" "dangerous national security risk" "con man" "national embarrassment" who is "wholly unprepared to be president" by his own party leaders?

Sure thing.

 

You're the one who used the term. Who were you referring to? The electors from rural Kansas?

 

Please, this has nothing to do with respecting the Constitution. This is all about attempting to delegitimize Trump's victory through petty whining. Every available trick and pathetic tactic has been tried by liberals and failed. That liberals are such sore losers is pathetic, but oddly predictable. That it only proves what hypocrites liberals are, after everything that witch Hillary said about the trusting in the system when she thought she would win, and seeing all the idiocy liberals pull after she lost...

 

No chance.

 

The original intent was that people would elect wise electors to make the decision because, given the lack of experience with a democracy, the founders didn't completely trust we the people.

Reps and Senators were originally chosen in similar ways, often by state legislatures. Those elections gradually became democratic.

The presidential election system is a anachronistic leftover.

Many are allowed to. Many states (20, I think) have made it a crime from them to vote their conscience.

Most today though are party lackeys who want to move up so they aren't going to rock the boat.

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)

- - - Updated - - -

12th Amendment to the Constitution

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.[Note 1]

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.[1]


Do you have a problem with the Constitution?

 

I did too - and the top shelf looks rather grand.

 

BTW OP I and most everyone here could care less what Lenin had to say.

- - - Updated - - -

BTW OP I and most everyone here could care less what Lenin had to say. We are happy that the Commie monster is dead and gone.

 

So called liberals had their victory dances planned, their speeches deriding republicans written and in proper order then the public voted.

Funny how they now whine over the election system of the USA.

 

Meh, the snowflakes are out on force.

 

The true measure of character is how one acts when no one is looking.

Their post-election "OMG RUSSIAN HACKERS!!" narrative is an obvious attempt to make THAT the "real news" to overshadow the ACTUAL real news...

which is; when they presume no one is looking, professional leftists have no integrity.

No, in their ideological bubble, the ends justify the means. It's a seductive philosophy, no doubt....much CAN be accomplished when legal, moral and ethical barriers are set aside. None of it good or lasting, however, as ultimately the bell always tolls. truth and justice always finds a way.

as they are now well aware, but stubbornly reticent to admit.

 

Actually they didn't want to vote for Trump. They wanted to team up with faithless republican electors and vote for a different republican (to be named later) in an attempt to keep Trump from winning. The idea was to offer faithless republican electors some extra votes if they choose a more moderate republican.

Edit to add... It's one of many tricks the democrats are pulling to keep Trump from being president.

 

Were he pleading to select not Trump for President but to instead select Pence, his argument would make more sense.

I get a kick out of his tomes supporting the electoral college yet his sig line attacks the same thing.

The public at large played virtually no role in presidents until after the death of Thomas Jefferson and his pal.

It was during the era of Andrew Jackson that for the first time, the public were allowed to participate.

Look at the caterwauling now that Trump defeated Clinton?

During the era of Washington, Adams and others, this could not happen since the electors did the voting and got no voting advice from the public.

 

Wow, 388 votes. That explains it. LOL