Are 538 Sworn electorates going to overturn the will of 60 million?

[shockedcanadian]

If they get the 40 people needed to vote for someone other than Trump, what happens? There is word that they are up to 20+ at the moment, this seems like a serious threat.

This meddling in these electorates decisions is astonishing. If people take an oath and then don't follow through, what value is their word, or the EC?

 

[Pete7469]

It's not a serious threat.

Just like MMGW isn't a serious issue.

 

[Care4all]

There is no President elect, until the Electors vote.

If we just wanted our President to win via the popular vote, then there would be no need for Electors, we'd just take the popular vote in each State to choose our President. Or rather the popular vote for the entire Nation...

the constitution specifically states that Electors are to have an INDEPENDENT vote.

States forcing Electors to swear to vote the way the State wants them to vote, ALL electors FOR the winner of the popular vote, is defeating the ENTIRE purpose of having independent Electors....isn't it?

 

[shockedcanadian]

There is no President elect, until the Electors vote.

If we just wanted our President to win via the popular vote, then there would be no need for Electors, we'd just take the popular vote in each State to choose our President. Or rather the popular vote for the entire Nation...

the constitution specifically states that Electors are to have an INDEPENDENT vote.

States forcing Electors to swear to vote the way the State wants them to vote, ALL electors FOR the winner of the popular vote, is defeating the ENTIRE purpose of having independent Electors....isn't it?

But then why vote at all? Just have a fiefdom or use the Democratic process in the primaries, select 500 important "superdelegates" around the country and let them choose the president every four years.

 

[Care4all]

oh, and I don't think enough electors will rebel, Donald Trump should be the real President Elect come Monday night and the President come Jan 20th.

 

[imawhosure]

There is no President elect, until the Electors vote.

If we just wanted our President to win via the popular vote, then there would be no need for Electors, we'd just take the popular vote in each State to choose our President. Or rather the popular vote for the entire Nation...

the constitution specifically states that Electors are to have an INDEPENDENT vote.

States forcing Electors to swear to vote the way the State wants them to vote, ALL electors FOR the winner of the popular vote, is defeating the ENTIRE purpose of having independent Electors....isn't it?

But then why vote at all? Just have a fiefdom or use the Democratic process in the primaries, select 500 important "superdelegates" around the country and let them choose the president every four years.

Even the electors can NOT stop Trump from being President. Won't go into it because I have posted the method all over this forum, but if the electors try it, the only way Trump can be disenfranchised is if the House goes along with it. Won't happen, so Trump is, and will be the President!

 

[shockedcanadian]

Well similar to Democrats complaining that the GOP needs to be concerned about Russian hacking as next time it might impact them, I would think Democrats would understand this also about the EC.

 

[Redfish]

There is no President elect, until the Electors vote.

If we just wanted our President to win via the popular vote, then there would be no need for Electors, we'd just take the popular vote in each State to choose our President. Or rather the popular vote for the entire Nation...

the constitution specifically states that Electors are to have an INDEPENDENT vote.

States forcing Electors to swear to vote the way the State wants them to vote, ALL electors FOR the winner of the popular vote, is defeating the ENTIRE purpose of having independent Electors....isn't it?

If that's true, then why even bother having the citizens vote. Just turn it over to the 538 electors and save the millions spent on elections. Then each candidate could see how many of the 538 they could bribe to vote for them. Can you say Russia or China?

You are too stupid to realize what you are asking for.

 

[imawhosure]

There is no President elect, until the Electors vote.

If we just wanted our President to win via the popular vote, then there would be no need for Electors, we'd just take the popular vote in each State to choose our President. Or rather the popular vote for the entire Nation...

the constitution specifically states that Electors are to have an INDEPENDENT vote.

States forcing Electors to swear to vote the way the State wants them to vote, ALL electors FOR the winner of the popular vote, is defeating the ENTIRE purpose of having independent Electors....isn't it?

If that's true, then why even bother having the citizens vote. Just turn it over to the 538 electors and save the millions spent on elections. Then each candidate could see how many of the 538 they could bribe to vote for them. Can you say Russia or China?

You are too stupid to realize what you are asking for.

You know Red, all these lefties are doing is attempting to undermine the American people's confidence in their own elections. I was against Trump doing it, and against the left doing it also. Americans had tremendous optimism 48hrs after Trump was elected, as foretold by the stockmarket and other financial vehicles going up to record highs, predicting the business climate 6 months down the road; even as the Fed raised interest rates which killed the market under Obama. The left is attempting to change all of that, because they have been to this movie before when Reagan was elected. They can't let it happen again, and so they are doing preemptive strikes to slow it down as much as possible.

Understand all the intellectual capital the left has spent rewriting history about the Reagan revolution. What do you think would happen to that narrative if virtually the same thing is again tried, and it succeeds as well as it did the 1st time! The left can't have it, and we better all realize it. We are at political war for the soul of our country, and the left will do everything it can to STOP a repeat of the policies that made Reagan so popular, 25% of Democratic voters cast a ballot for him when he ran for re-election. Once you understand that, it explains EXACTLY why the left is doing what it is doing!

 

[Care4all]

There is no President elect, until the Electors vote.

If we just wanted our President to win via the popular vote, then there would be no need for Electors, we'd just take the popular vote in each State to choose our President. Or rather the popular vote for the entire Nation...

the constitution specifically states that Electors are to have an INDEPENDENT vote.

States forcing Electors to swear to vote the way the State wants them to vote, ALL electors FOR the winner of the popular vote, is defeating the ENTIRE purpose of having independent Electors....isn't it?

But then why vote at all? Just have a fiefdom or use the Democratic process in the primaries, select 500 important "superdelegates" around the country and let them choose the president every four years.

Electors are given to the States in 2 ways...

one, the States are given 1 elector for every US Congressmen that they have...so 1 elector for every congressional voting district each state has...these electors represents the State's population...broken down by congressional district.

So this is why a state as populated as Texas might have 20 electors for 20 congressional districts and a State like mine in Maine which is a very low populated State, has only 2 electors representing our population in the 2 congressional districts that we have in my State.

But on top of these electors given for each congressman that the state has, each State is also given 2 extra electors, representing the 2 Senators each State has in the US Senate.

This is what gives the small States some weighting. Since Texas gets 2 and a State like Maine gets 2.... it DOUBLES the electors that Maine would get if only the population was considered. WOW, that really helps us up here in this State! But in Texas, where they have 20 districts/electors with 700,000 people in each, (for every 700,000 people in a State, they get 1 US Congressman), they too ONLY GET those 2 extra senatorial electors....and for Texas, that only gives them a 10% increase above the electors given for the state's populous.

So Maine got 100% more electors by those 2, and Texas only got 10% more electors.....

THIS IS WHAT the Founders did to GIVE Smaller populated States like mine, MORE of a say, MORE representation than simply through the population.

THIS IS WHAT the founders did to protect us from simply large population states forcing their candidates down our throats.

BUT the founders did NOT create it where the smaller states of the many, would always be the winner of the electoral vote either....they gave the less populated States a CHANCE at getting as president who they want....

Let's say we had two candidates that tied in the popular vote, and each candidate was given proportionately the electors they won...

We have 538 electors in total, take out the 100 extra electors from giving each state 2 electors for their 2 senators, so 438 electors that represent the population,

the only 2 candidates in the race are tied, so one candidate has 219 electors won, and the other candidate has 219 electors won.

but 1 Candidate won 31 states (less populated) in order to get to his 219 electors

And the other candidate only won 19 States in order to get to her 219 electors

Out of the remaining 100 electors that Represent the Senators, and the Senators represent the State itself, as per our constitution, those electors vote with who won the popular vote in their own State.

This means, that the one candidate who won 31 states, gets 62 of those extra electors, and the other candidate who only won 19 states, gets only 38 extra electors for her win states....

The MAN candidate WINS, the LADY is a LOSER in my scenario...

THIS ABOVE is the advantage that the founders put in to the electoral process that would diminish the the power so to say of the heavily populated states and give the advantage to our Fly over country, our less populated states.

==========================

Look at how Maine does their vote....(Nebraska also) We have 2 voting districts in my State thus 2 electors for the populous, one district voted for Trump, and the other congressional voting district voted for Clinton.

We issue 1 Elector for Clinton, and 1 elector won by Trump and in the overall popular vote, Clinton won so Clinton got the 2 extra senatorial given electors representing the State

WE DO NOT have a WINNER TAKES ALL on electors, each elector is representing their voting district.

(THIS IS HOW ALL STATES should do it and they should change it back to the way our founders intended it to be, the electors are like congressmen, they vote representing their district for the best person to be President for the Nation)


Trump came to my district in itty bitty populated Maine, 3 times!!!! HOLY SMOKES!!! All because he had a chance of winning this one district in Maine for our 1 single elector that could have made the difference for him....He would have never come here to rally, IF OUR STATE had it set up as a 'winner take all' electors.

when States make it a "winner take all" they eliminate the will of so many citizens in a National vote for President.... and limit all the contestants that visit them....

Trump came here for 1 electoral vote

In a winner takes all....as example.... all of those 35% Trump votes of California, the total electors are going to Hillary, even though she did NOT win them in this national vote for President.

MY STATE, DOES IT THE RIGHT WAY!!!

 

[whitehall]

It's best not to even bring it up or give encouragement to those poor mentally deranged radical lefties. Who knows what might happen once they are forced to face reality?

 

[Care4all]

I don't in any way, want to diminish Donald Trumps win, he won the electoral vote, fair and square....following the rules that were in place before the contest began, in my opinion!

I am recommending FOR THE FUTURE that the States go back to 1 electoral vote per district or even dividing electors by the percentage of the vote they got in the State election, and the 2 senatorial electors vote for the State and its popular vote winner.

I think the populous of the Nation would be represented better, with the less population States still getting the weighting advantage with the 2 extra electors per State.

 

[Care4all]

The States have set it up for it being a 2 party system and 3rd party candidates to never win a single elector when they make a State, winner of the overall State popular vote takes ALL OF THE ELECTORS....

Ross Perot as a third Party Candidate won 19% of this Nation's popular vote!!!

AND Ross Perot did NOT WIN , 1 single itty bitty Electoral Vote, NOT ONE because of the way the States have set it up to protect the two Party system.....

19% for goodness sake! not ONE elector!

 

[Rustic]

I don't in any way, want to diminish Donald Trumps win, he won the electoral vote, fair and square....following the rules that were in place before the contest began, in my opinion!

I am recommended FOR THE FUTURE that the States go back to 1 electoral vote per district or even dividing electors by the percentage of the vote they got in the State election, and the 2 senatorial electors vote for the State and its popular vote winner.

I think the populous of the Nation would be represented better, with the less population States still getting the weighting advantage with the 2 extra electors per State.

And with that system trump would have still won...

 

[NYcarbineer]

It would be great to see, if only to witness the RWnutters in one huge heave throw the electoral college under the bus.

 

[OKTexas]

There is no President elect, until the Electors vote.

If we just wanted our President to win via the popular vote, then there would be no need for Electors, we'd just take the popular vote in each State to choose our President. Or rather the popular vote for the entire Nation...

the constitution specifically states that Electors are to have an INDEPENDENT vote.

States forcing Electors to swear to vote the way the State wants them to vote, ALL electors FOR the winner of the popular vote, is defeating the ENTIRE purpose of having independent Electors....isn't it?

How about posting the Article, Section and Clause that state electors have independent votes. They are chosen by the State to do the will of the State, they are elected representatives with one duty, to vote the way the State tells them to.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

If they get the 40 people needed to vote for someone other than Trump, what happens? There is word that they are up to 20+ at the moment, this seems like a serious threat.

This meddling in these electorates decisions is astonishing. If people take an oath and then don't follow through, what value is their word, or the EC?

No, they would essentially be flipping the bird to the states that elected him.

 

[kiwiman127]

There is no President elect, until the Electors vote.

If we just wanted our President to win via the popular vote, then there would be no need for Electors, we'd just take the popular vote in each State to choose our President. Or rather the popular vote for the entire Nation...

the constitution specifically states that Electors are to have an INDEPENDENT vote.

States forcing Electors to swear to vote the way the State wants them to vote, ALL electors FOR the winner of the popular vote, is defeating the ENTIRE purpose of having independent Electors....isn't it?

If that's true, then why even bother having the citizens vote. Just turn it over to the 538 electors and save the millions spent on elections. Then each candidate could see how many of the 538 they could bribe to vote for them. Can you say Russia or China?

You are too stupid to realize what you are asking for.

You calling people stupid is so ironic.

 

[Care4all]

There is no President elect, until the Electors vote.

If we just wanted our President to win via the popular vote, then there would be no need for Electors, we'd just take the popular vote in each State to choose our President. Or rather the popular vote for the entire Nation...

the constitution specifically states that Electors are to have an INDEPENDENT vote.

States forcing Electors to swear to vote the way the State wants them to vote, ALL electors FOR the winner of the popular vote, is defeating the ENTIRE purpose of having independent Electors....isn't it?

How about posting the Article, Section and Clause that state electors have independent votes. They are chosen by the State to do the will of the State, they are elected representatives with one duty, to vote the way the State tells them to.

I need to clarify, Hamilton and Madison were the creators of the electoral process written in to the constitution, along with 7 others, a total of 9 were the founding fathers committee members that created it...

in the Federalist papers 68, Hamilton explained how he saw the process of the electors working, google federalists 68 and in there he goes in to the elector's independence.... so, not in the actual article in the constitution, but in the papers explaining how they came to writing the article.... Madison has writings on it too, I think it is the federalist papers 74, but I would need to double check that number.

 

[OKTexas]

There is no President elect, until the Electors vote.

If we just wanted our President to win via the popular vote, then there would be no need for Electors, we'd just take the popular vote in each State to choose our President. Or rather the popular vote for the entire Nation...

the constitution specifically states that Electors are to have an INDEPENDENT vote.

States forcing Electors to swear to vote the way the State wants them to vote, ALL electors FOR the winner of the popular vote, is defeating the ENTIRE purpose of having independent Electors....isn't it?

How about posting the Article, Section and Clause that state electors have independent votes. They are chosen by the State to do the will of the State, they are elected representatives with one duty, to vote the way the State tells them to.

I need to clarify, Hamilton and Madison were the creators of the electoral process written in to the constitution, along with 7 others, a total of 9 were the founding fathers committee members that created it...

in the Federalist papers 68, Hamilton explained how he saw the process of the electors working, google federalists 68 and in there he goes in to the elector's independence.... so, not in the actual article in the constitution, but in the papers explaining how they came to writing the article.... Madison has writings on it too, I think it is the federalist papers 74, but I would need to double check that number.

Yeah Madison also said the Genereal Welfare reverence in Aritcle 1, Section 8, Clause 1, the taxing and spending clause, was a spending category that was limited by the remainder of Section 8 too. How'd that work out once the supremes got hold of it? So you hypocrites use the federalist papers like you do the Constitution, selectively when it supports your hypocrisy.

But back to the topic at hand, do you seriously think Hamilton or Madison would want electors to reverse the will of a sufficient number of States to propose a constitutional amendment? I don't think so since Trump has every annunciated constitutional qualification to be president. The fact that you or anyone else thinks he's otherwise unqualified is irrelevant. Electors are elected to do the will of the State, they have no independence beyond casting their personal general election ballot in their respective States.