Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
With Michigan there will be too many to flip. if the republican electors flip for clinton ANYWHERE, there will be a million people on their doorstep lined up to kick their ass.
There's nothing in the Constitution about "kicking their ass". Face it, the EC vote is up to them; the voters have no control over that.
Its not so simple. Fact is Hillary lost and lost by allot. It would not end at electors.
Yup, she "lost by a lot". Rump is ahead of her by negative 2¼ million.
We've reached a 'special' place in the art of denialism when we can look right at 64.6 and call it a "smaller" number than 62.4.
Denialism is better demonstrated by denying you lost an election by changing the rules after it is over.
You want PV? Get the rules changed. But you still didn't win this election, no one ran for the popular vote. Get over the butt hurt. Liberals believe you are entitled to elections. You aren't
Kaz, no one is changing the rules. But the losers have the constitutional right to demand recounts and there is no federal law against trying to persuade the electors to vote differently than the popular vote in their states.
So the OP is advocating sedition, the overthrow of the newly elected govt, the treason / betrayal of the American people....
Liberals are really good at that.
They don't even see it's SHIT LIKE THIS that makes us NOT want THEM in power!
Have you been mixing aerosol cans again?
The OP is examining how the EC works. Which by the way hasn't happened yet, and there is no "newly elected govt". You too should go read the Constitution and learn how it works.
Please point out where it has ever swung an election.
The EC?
1876. 1888. 1824. Sometimes with a push from Congress when nobody won it.
Fun fact: no POTUS has ever been elected with a popular vote deficit of 1.7% (the current Rump gap) without Congress having to intervene.
Gore's was 0.51%, just over the population of Wyoming (at the time).
Clinton's 1.7 (so far) exceeds the population of Wyoming, Alaska, both Dakotas, New Mexico, West Virginia, Montana, Nebraska and half a dozen other states.
There's nothing in the Constitution about "kicking their ass". Face it, the EC vote is up to them; the voters have no control over that.
Its not so simple. Fact is Hillary lost and lost by allot. It would not end at electors.
Yup, she "lost by a lot". Rump is ahead of her by negative 2¼ million.
We've reached a 'special' place in the art of denialism when we can look right at 64.6 and call it a "smaller" number than 62.4.
Denialism is better demonstrated by denying you lost an election by changing the rules after it is over.
You want PV? Get the rules changed. But you still didn't win this election, no one ran for the popular vote. Get over the butt hurt. Liberals believe you are entitled to elections. You aren't
Kaz, no one is changing the rules. But the losers have the constitutional right to demand recounts and there is no federal law against trying to persuade the electors to vote differently than the popular vote in their states.
Actually it's State law. 29 States do require electors to vote the way the State voted. 21 don't. If it were reversed and Republicans were trying to overturn an election won by Democrats, you'd be hysterically screaming bloody murder
And where did recounts come in? We're discussing electors
Easily? He won by 38 electoral votes. And lost by 7 million popular votes.So the OP is advocating sedition, the overthrow of the newly elected govt, the treason / betrayal of the American people....
Liberals are really good at that.
They don't even see it's SHIT LIKE THIS that makes us NOT want THEM in power!
Have you been mixing aerosol cans again?
The OP is examining how the EC works. Which by the way hasn't happened yet, and there is no "newly elected govt". You too should go read the Constitution and learn how it works.
Please point out where it has ever swung an election.
The EC?
1876. 1888. 1824. Sometimes with a push from Congress when nobody won it.
Fun fact: no POTUS has ever been elected with a popular vote deficit of 1.7% (the current Rump gap) without Congress having to intervene.
Gore's was 0.51%, just over the population of Wyoming (at the time).
Clinton's 1.7 (so far) exceeds the population of Wyoming, Alaska, both Dakotas, New Mexico, West Virginia, Montana, Nebraska and half a dozen other states.
And yet he easily won the electoral college. California, New York, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts and other deep blue States have well oiled machines. Millions of Republicans in those States don't show up. Again, no one ran for the popular vote. If you want to argue that should be the rule, fine, do that. But get over the but hurt that we should change the rules for an election when it's over.
NO ONE RAN FOR THE POPULAR VOTE
This will be far, far harder for him than the Bush the Younger.
Its not so simple. Fact is Hillary lost and lost by allot. It would not end at electors.
Yup, she "lost by a lot". Rump is ahead of her by negative 2¼ million.
We've reached a 'special' place in the art of denialism when we can look right at 64.6 and call it a "smaller" number than 62.4.
Denialism is better demonstrated by denying you lost an election by changing the rules after it is over.
You want PV? Get the rules changed. But you still didn't win this election, no one ran for the popular vote. Get over the butt hurt. Liberals believe you are entitled to elections. You aren't
Kaz, no one is changing the rules. But the losers have the constitutional right to demand recounts and there is no federal law against trying to persuade the electors to vote differently than the popular vote in their states.
Actually it's State law. 29 States do require electors to vote the way the State voted. 21 don't. If it were reversed and Republicans were trying to overturn an election won by Democrats, you'd be hysterically screaming bloody murder
And where did recounts come in? We're discussing electors
Would the recounts even make a difference? Trump diddnt just win by 500 votes, we are talking 70,000 or more in some places.
There is no federal law, which you ignored. Does not matter what the states require. Once the electors cast their votes, nothing can change that.There's nothing in the Constitution about "kicking their ass". Face it, the EC vote is up to them; the voters have no control over that.
Its not so simple. Fact is Hillary lost and lost by allot. It would not end at electors.
Yup, she "lost by a lot". Rump is ahead of her by negative 2¼ million.
We've reached a 'special' place in the art of denialism when we can look right at 64.6 and call it a "smaller" number than 62.4.
Denialism is better demonstrated by denying you lost an election by changing the rules after it is over.
You want PV? Get the rules changed. But you still didn't win this election, no one ran for the popular vote. Get over the butt hurt. Liberals believe you are entitled to elections. You aren't
Kaz, no one is changing the rules. But the losers have the constitutional right to demand recounts and there is no federal law against trying to persuade the electors to vote differently than the popular vote in their states.
Actually it's State law. 29 States do require electors to vote the way the State voted. 21 don't. If it were reversed and Republicans were trying to overturn an election won by Democrats, you'd be hysterically screaming bloody murder
And where did recounts come in? We're discussing electors
“Opponents of President-elect Donald Trump are trying to persuade Republican electors to vote against him next month ……
Electors meet in their state capitals to cast their ballots; this year, that will take place Dec. 19. ………
Do electors have to vote the way their state voted?
The Constitution is silent on this point, which suggests electors can go their own way.
This is certainly the thinking behind petitions and a handful of Clinton electors urging
Republican electors to abandon Trump.
In 29 states, there are either statutes or party
rules that theoretically bind electors to honor state results.
But the penalty for becoming
a "faithless elector" is typically a fine measured in the hundreds of dollars.”
IOW: With no fear of significant legal punishment the Electoral College CAN elect Hillary
Can electors vote for Clinton rather than Trump? How the electoral college works
ps: the reward for becoming a "faithless elector" could be immense
and
the penalty for not being a "faithless elector" could also be immense
Consider all the Republicans who support Obama policies.
"carrot and stick"
"when ya got’em by the balls, you can make'em see the light"
Easily? He won by 38 electoral votes. And lost by 7 million popular votes.Have you been mixing aerosol cans again?
The OP is examining how the EC works. Which by the way hasn't happened yet, and there is no "newly elected govt". You too should go read the Constitution and learn how it works.
Please point out where it has ever swung an election.
The EC?
1876. 1888. 1824. Sometimes with a push from Congress when nobody won it.
Fun fact: no POTUS has ever been elected with a popular vote deficit of 1.7% (the current Rump gap) without Congress having to intervene.
Gore's was 0.51%, just over the population of Wyoming (at the time).
Clinton's 1.7 (so far) exceeds the population of Wyoming, Alaska, both Dakotas, New Mexico, West Virginia, Montana, Nebraska and half a dozen other states.
And yet he easily won the electoral college. California, New York, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts and other deep blue States have well oiled machines. Millions of Republicans in those States don't show up. Again, no one ran for the popular vote. If you want to argue that should be the rule, fine, do that. But get over the but hurt that we should change the rules for an election when it's over.
NO ONE RAN FOR THE POPULAR VOTE
This will be far, far harder for him than the Bush the Younger.
Trump won by 75 electoral votes.
Also, he only lost by 2 million popular votes, but what is your point with that? No one ran to win the popular vote
He won by 38 votes. He lost the popular vote by seven million. The point is that America is going to keep giving him hell. It's only going to increase every single day.Easily? He won by 38 electoral votes. And lost by 7 million popular votes.Have you been mixing aerosol cans again?
The OP is examining how the EC works. Which by the way hasn't happened yet, and there is no "newly elected govt". You too should go read the Constitution and learn how it works.
Please point out where it has ever swung an election.
The EC?
1876. 1888. 1824. Sometimes with a push from Congress when nobody won it.
Fun fact: no POTUS has ever been elected with a popular vote deficit of 1.7% (the current Rump gap) without Congress having to intervene.
Gore's was 0.51%, just over the population of Wyoming (at the time).
Clinton's 1.7 (so far) exceeds the population of Wyoming, Alaska, both Dakotas, New Mexico, West Virginia, Montana, Nebraska and half a dozen other states.
And yet he easily won the electoral college. California, New York, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts and other deep blue States have well oiled machines. Millions of Republicans in those States don't show up. Again, no one ran for the popular vote. If you want to argue that should be the rule, fine, do that. But get over the but hurt that we should change the rules for an election when it's over.
NO ONE RAN FOR THE POPULAR VOTE
This will be far, far harder for him than the Bush the Younger.
Trump won by 75 electoral votes.
Also, he only lost by 2 million popular votes, but what is your point with that? No one ran to win the popular vote
With Michigan there will be too many to flip. if the republican electors flip for clinton ANYWHERE, there will be a million people on their doorstep lined up to kick their ass.
There's nothing in the Constitution about "kicking their ass". Face it, the EC vote is up to them; the voters have no control over that.
Its not so simple. Fact is Hillary lost and lost by allot. It would not end at electors.
Yup, she "lost by a lot". Rump is ahead of her by negative 2¼ million.
We've reached a 'special' place in the art of denialism when we can look right at 64.6 and call it a "smaller" number than 62.4.
And that matters why ?
We've never elected a president on popular vote.
Yup, she "lost by a lot". Rump is ahead of her by negative 2¼ million.
We've reached a 'special' place in the art of denialism when we can look right at 64.6 and call it a "smaller" number than 62.4.
Denialism is better demonstrated by denying you lost an election by changing the rules after it is over.
You want PV? Get the rules changed. But you still didn't win this election, no one ran for the popular vote. Get over the butt hurt. Liberals believe you are entitled to elections. You aren't
Kaz, no one is changing the rules. But the losers have the constitutional right to demand recounts and there is no federal law against trying to persuade the electors to vote differently than the popular vote in their states.
Actually it's State law. 29 States do require electors to vote the way the State voted. 21 don't. If it were reversed and Republicans were trying to overturn an election won by Democrats, you'd be hysterically screaming bloody murder
And where did recounts come in? We're discussing electors
Would the recounts even make a difference? Trump diddnt just win by 500 votes, we are talking 70,000 or more in some places.
No, the recounts won't matter. Too many States would have to be overturned, it's not going to happen
With Michigan there will be too many to flip. if the republican electors flip for clinton ANYWHERE, there will be a million people on their doorstep lined up to kick their ass.
There's nothing in the Constitution about "kicking their ass". Face it, the EC vote is up to them; the voters have no control over that.
Its not so simple. Fact is Hillary lost and lost by allot. It would not end at electors.
Yup, she "lost by a lot". Rump is ahead of her by negative 2¼ million.
We've reached a 'special' place in the art of denialism when we can look right at 64.6 and call it a "smaller" number than 62.4.
And that matters why ?
We've never elected a president on popular vote.
It matters because the previous poster just pulled a numerical boner. So I corrected him.
Be careful what you wish for Dimocrats, this kind of anarchy could backfire in your face.
Drifter thinks the protocols of the constitutional republic are anarchy.Be careful what you wish for Dimocrats, this kind of anarchy could backfire in your face.
What "anarchy" is that then?
Wanna borrow my copy of the Constitution?
There is no federal law, which you ignored. Does not matter what the states require. Once the electors cast their votes, nothing can change that.Its not so simple. Fact is Hillary lost and lost by allot. It would not end at electors.
Yup, she "lost by a lot". Rump is ahead of her by negative 2¼ million.
We've reached a 'special' place in the art of denialism when we can look right at 64.6 and call it a "smaller" number than 62.4.
Denialism is better demonstrated by denying you lost an election by changing the rules after it is over.
You want PV? Get the rules changed. But you still didn't win this election, no one ran for the popular vote. Get over the butt hurt. Liberals believe you are entitled to elections. You aren't
Kaz, no one is changing the rules. But the losers have the constitutional right to demand recounts and there is no federal law against trying to persuade the electors to vote differently than the popular vote in their states.
Actually it's State law. 29 States do require electors to vote the way the State voted. 21 don't. If it were reversed and Republicans were trying to overturn an election won by Democrats, you'd be hysterically screaming bloody murder
And where did recounts come in? We're discussing electors
Your hysteria is disturbing, kaz. Are you, OK?
Easily? He won by 38 electoral votes. And lost by 7 million popular votes.Please point out where it has ever swung an election.
The EC?
1876. 1888. 1824. Sometimes with a push from Congress when nobody won it.
Fun fact: no POTUS has ever been elected with a popular vote deficit of 1.7% (the current Rump gap) without Congress having to intervene.
Gore's was 0.51%, just over the population of Wyoming (at the time).
Clinton's 1.7 (so far) exceeds the population of Wyoming, Alaska, both Dakotas, New Mexico, West Virginia, Montana, Nebraska and half a dozen other states.
And yet he easily won the electoral college. California, New York, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts and other deep blue States have well oiled machines. Millions of Republicans in those States don't show up. Again, no one ran for the popular vote. If you want to argue that should be the rule, fine, do that. But get over the but hurt that we should change the rules for an election when it's over.
NO ONE RAN FOR THE POPULAR VOTE
This will be far, far harder for him than the Bush the Younger.
Trump won by 75 electoral votes.
Also, he only lost by 2 million popular votes, but what is your point with that? No one ran to win the popular vote
The first sentence is all that matters.
He won by 38 votes. He lost the popular vote by seven million. The point is that America is going to keep giving him hell. It's only going to increase every single day.Easily? He won by 38 electoral votes. And lost by 7 million popular votes.Please point out where it has ever swung an election.
The EC?
1876. 1888. 1824. Sometimes with a push from Congress when nobody won it.
Fun fact: no POTUS has ever been elected with a popular vote deficit of 1.7% (the current Rump gap) without Congress having to intervene.
Gore's was 0.51%, just over the population of Wyoming (at the time).
Clinton's 1.7 (so far) exceeds the population of Wyoming, Alaska, both Dakotas, New Mexico, West Virginia, Montana, Nebraska and half a dozen other states.
And yet he easily won the electoral college. California, New York, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts and other deep blue States have well oiled machines. Millions of Republicans in those States don't show up. Again, no one ran for the popular vote. If you want to argue that should be the rule, fine, do that. But get over the but hurt that we should change the rules for an election when it's over.
NO ONE RAN FOR THE POPULAR VOTE
This will be far, far harder for him than the Bush the Younger.
Trump won by 75 electoral votes.
Also, he only lost by 2 million popular votes, but what is your point with that? No one ran to win the popular vote
If anything, overturning these votes would pretty much mean the end of the democratic party.
don't like Trump, but screwing with the process would piss me off.
Any elector in my state who changed his vote would not bother to return.
I did not say that, did I? So you must think electors can ignore their state laws.There is no federal law, which you ignored. Does not matter what the states require. Once the electors cast their votes, nothing can change that.Yup, she "lost by a lot". Rump is ahead of her by negative 2¼ million.
We've reached a 'special' place in the art of denialism when we can look right at 64.6 and call it a "smaller" number than 62.4.
Denialism is better demonstrated by denying you lost an election by changing the rules after it is over.
You want PV? Get the rules changed. But you still didn't win this election, no one ran for the popular vote. Get over the butt hurt. Liberals believe you are entitled to elections. You aren't
Kaz, no one is changing the rules. But the losers have the constitutional right to demand recounts and there is no federal law against trying to persuade the electors to vote differently than the popular vote in their states.
Actually it's State law. 29 States do require electors to vote the way the State voted. 21 don't. If it were reversed and Republicans were trying to overturn an election won by Democrats, you'd be hysterically screaming bloody murder
And where did recounts come in? We're discussing electors
Your hysteria is disturbing, kaz. Are you, OK?
Electors can ignore their State laws? Link
And get over the butt hurt, Jake. You fags and your endless quest to discuss your emotions is getting tired. Hetero up, queer
Denialism is better demonstrated by denying you lost an election by changing the rules after it is over.
You want PV? Get the rules changed. But you still didn't win this election, no one ran for the popular vote. Get over the butt hurt. Liberals believe you are entitled to elections. You aren't
Kaz, no one is changing the rules. But the losers have the constitutional right to demand recounts and there is no federal law against trying to persuade the electors to vote differently than the popular vote in their states.
Actually it's State law. 29 States do require electors to vote the way the State voted. 21 don't. If it were reversed and Republicans were trying to overturn an election won by Democrats, you'd be hysterically screaming bloody murder
And where did recounts come in? We're discussing electors
Would the recounts even make a difference? Trump diddnt just win by 500 votes, we are talking 70,000 or more in some places.
No, the recounts won't matter. Too many States would have to be overturned, it's not going to happen
Correct.
If anything, overturning these votes would pretty much mean the end of the democratic party.
I don't like Trump, but screwing with the process would piss me off.
Any elector in my state who changed his vote would not bother to return.
One: there would be no house for him to live in (although if he had a basement it might still be standing).
Two: It simply would not be safe.
