Faithless Electors

[Godboy]

The electors are smart enough to know that should they not vote for Trump, this will be the last election the Electoral College will ever participate in.

 

[Pogo]

The electors are smart enough to know that should they not vote for Trump, this will be the last election the Electoral College will ever participate in.

Why is that?

 

[S.J.]

his is a pipe dream. Even if some electors switched their vote, they would simply be replaced and that vote would be worthless. As a last line of defense, Congress could overturn any butthurt elector who refused to vote for the candidate of his/her state who got the most votes.

No it couldn't, clown shoes. Doesn't work that way at all. Guess Ringel was right about civics class.

No Bubbles, actually the Constitution leaves great latitude to the several states as to how they pick their electors, and how they set the rules for them. That's up to the state legislatures. And nowhere does the Constitution say those electors have to vote winner-take-all. Two states already don't, and many have split in the past. Including 1960 as I posted above.

Oh the density.....

Yeah, yeah, you think you know everything, you don't know shit. Congress meets on Jan. 6, 2017 to count the electoral votes. They have the power to overturn any faithless electors rogue votes. You truly are an idiot. Just accept your defeat, Hillary Clinton is not going to be president, ever.
No, the Electoral College won’t make Clinton president instead of Trump

 

[Pogo]

his is a pipe dream. Even if some electors switched their vote, they would simply be replaced and that vote would be worthless. As a last line of defense, Congress could overturn any butthurt elector who refused to vote for the candidate of his/her state who got the most votes.

No it couldn't, clown shoes. Doesn't work that way at all. Guess Ringel was right about civics class.

No Bubbles, actually the Constitution leaves great latitude to the several states as to how they pick their electors, and how they set the rules for them. That's up to the state legislatures. And nowhere does the Constitution say those electors have to vote winner-take-all. Two states already don't, and many have split in the past. Including 1960 as I posted above.

Oh the density.....

Yeah, yeah, you think you know everything, you don't know shit. Congress meets on Jan. 6, 2017 to count the electoral votes. They have the power to overturn any faithless electors rogue votes. You truly are an idiot. Just accept your defeat, Hillary Clinton is not going to be president, ever.
No, the Electoral College won’t make Clinton president instead of Trump

>> According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, about 30 of the 50 states have passed laws "binding" their electors to vote in accordance with the presidential popular vote in their state. But in most, the penalty for not doing so is only a fine, and it’s unclear whether stiffer penalties would hold up in court — it’s never been tested, and the Constitution does appear to give the electors the right to make the final call. Furthermore, there are still 20 or so states that haven’t even tried to bind their electors.

This isn’t just theoretical. Richard Berg-Andersson lists nine electors who have indeed gone “rogue” and refused to support their state’s presidential choice in the past 100 years. Their votes were all counted as cast, though there have never been sufficient numbers of them to overturn a presidential election result. <<​

--- that's your own link talkin' Twinkletoes.

Now here's one of mine:

>> And state legislatures have modified the rules for the selection of presidential electors when they worry that the people of the state will vote for a disfavored candidate. In 1892, for instance, Democrats gained control of the Michigan legislature. They decided that presidential electors should be appointed according to popular vote totals in each congressional district, as opposed to the statewide winner-take-all system that had previously existed. Michiganders had consistently voted for a slate of Republican electors in the recent past, and the move to elections by district guaranteed that Democrats would win at least a few of electoral votes.

In McPherson v. Blacker, the Supreme Court approved Michigan’s move and found that the mode of appointing electors was “exclusively” reserved to the states. The court would not interfere with the state legislature’s decision, whatever the reason. <<
​

It's strictly up to each state legislature to determine how they pick electors. They don't even have to hold an Election Day. That's just bread and circus. And again, not only does the Constitution not interfere with that, but NOWHERE does it prescribe that electors have to vote "winner take all". Maine and Nebraska already don't do that, and it too is perfectly Constitutional. So Congress ain't got squat to say about it, Shirley. It's out of their hands.

Moreover I just posted about 1960 where no fewer than fifteen faithless electors cast their votes for a guy who wasn't even running for President. They decided they didn't like either the Democrat or the Republican.

That's why I say nothing's settled until December 19; anything can happen.

 

[Auld Phart]

his is a pipe dream. Even if some electors switched their vote, they would simply be replaced and that vote would be worthless. As a last line of defense, Congress could overturn any butthurt elector who refused to vote for the candidate of his/her state who got the most votes.

No it couldn't, clown shoes. Doesn't work that way at all. Guess Ringel was right about civics class.

No Bubbles, actually the Constitution leaves great latitude to the several states as to how they pick their electors, and how they set the rules for them. That's up to the state legislatures. And nowhere does the Constitution say those electors have to vote winner-take-all. Two states already don't, and many have split in the past. Including 1960 as I posted above.

Oh the density.....

Yeah, yeah, you think you know everything, you don't know shit. Congress meets on Jan. 6, 2017 to count the electoral votes. They have the power to overturn any faithless electors rogue votes. You truly are an idiot. Just accept your defeat, Hillary Clinton is not going to be president, ever.
No, the Electoral College won’t make Clinton president instead of Trump

>> According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, about 30 of the 50 states have passed laws "binding" their electors to vote in accordance with the presidential popular vote in their state. But in most, the penalty for not doing so is only a fine, and it’s unclear whether stiffer penalties would hold up in court — it’s never been tested, and the Constitution does appear to give the electors the right to make the final call. Furthermore, there are still 20 or so states that haven’t even tried to bind their electors.

This isn’t just theoretical. Richard Berg-Andersson lists nine electors who have indeed gone “rogue” and refused to support their state’s presidential choice in the past 100 years. Their votes were all counted as cast, though there have never been sufficient numbers of them to overturn a presidential election result. <<​

--- that's your own link talkin' Twinkletoes.

Now here's one of mine:

>> And state legislatures have modified the rules for the selection of presidential electors when they worry that the people of the state will vote for a disfavored candidate. In 1892, for instance, Democrats gained control of the Michigan legislature. They decided that presidential electors should be appointed according to popular vote totals in each congressional district, as opposed to the statewide winner-take-all system that had previously existed. Michiganders had consistently voted for a slate of Republican electors in the recent past, and the move to elections by district guaranteed that Democrats would win at least a few of electoral votes.

In McPherson v. Blacker, the Supreme Court approved Michigan’s move and found that the mode of appointing electors was “exclusively” reserved to the states. The court would not interfere with the state legislature’s decision, whatever the reason. <<
​

It's strictly up to each state legislature to determine how they pick electors. They don't even have to hold an Election Day. That's just bread and circus. And again, not only does the Constitution not interfere with that, but NOWHERE does it prescribe that electors have to vote "winner take all". Maine and Nebraska already don't do that, and it too is perfectly Constitutional. So Congress ain't got squat to say about it, Shirley. It's out of their hands.

Moreover I just posted about 1960 where no fewer than fifteen faithless electors cast their votes for a guy who wasn't even running for President. They decided they didn't like either the Democrat or the Republican.

That's why I say nothing's settled until December 19; anything can happen.

and if 37 electors decide to not vote for Trump, and all 37 don't vote for Hillary, leaving both under the needed majority, it goes to the House for a vote.

1 vote per state.

 

[miketx]

Won't happen. Should be a law with jail time attached to electors who do. Trump will be President.

I'll say it again. All hail President Trump. Your President. My President. Our President.

Stop it. No amount of back peddling will make him grab your pussy.

 

[Pogo]

his is a pipe dream. Even if some electors switched their vote, they would simply be replaced and that vote would be worthless. As a last line of defense, Congress could overturn any butthurt elector who refused to vote for the candidate of his/her state who got the most votes.

No it couldn't, clown shoes. Doesn't work that way at all. Guess Ringel was right about civics class.

No Bubbles, actually the Constitution leaves great latitude to the several states as to how they pick their electors, and how they set the rules for them. That's up to the state legislatures. And nowhere does the Constitution say those electors have to vote winner-take-all. Two states already don't, and many have split in the past. Including 1960 as I posted above.

Oh the density.....

Yeah, yeah, you think you know everything, you don't know shit. Congress meets on Jan. 6, 2017 to count the electoral votes. They have the power to overturn any faithless electors rogue votes. You truly are an idiot. Just accept your defeat, Hillary Clinton is not going to be president, ever.
No, the Electoral College won’t make Clinton president instead of Trump

>> According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, about 30 of the 50 states have passed laws "binding" their electors to vote in accordance with the presidential popular vote in their state. But in most, the penalty for not doing so is only a fine, and it’s unclear whether stiffer penalties would hold up in court — it’s never been tested, and the Constitution does appear to give the electors the right to make the final call. Furthermore, there are still 20 or so states that haven’t even tried to bind their electors.

This isn’t just theoretical. Richard Berg-Andersson lists nine electors who have indeed gone “rogue” and refused to support their state’s presidential choice in the past 100 years. Their votes were all counted as cast, though there have never been sufficient numbers of them to overturn a presidential election result. <<​

--- that's your own link talkin' Twinkletoes.

Now here's one of mine:

>> And state legislatures have modified the rules for the selection of presidential electors when they worry that the people of the state will vote for a disfavored candidate. In 1892, for instance, Democrats gained control of the Michigan legislature. They decided that presidential electors should be appointed according to popular vote totals in each congressional district, as opposed to the statewide winner-take-all system that had previously existed. Michiganders had consistently voted for a slate of Republican electors in the recent past, and the move to elections by district guaranteed that Democrats would win at least a few of electoral votes.

In McPherson v. Blacker, the Supreme Court approved Michigan’s move and found that the mode of appointing electors was “exclusively” reserved to the states. The court would not interfere with the state legislature’s decision, whatever the reason. <<
​

It's strictly up to each state legislature to determine how they pick electors. They don't even have to hold an Election Day. That's just bread and circus. And again, not only does the Constitution not interfere with that, but NOWHERE does it prescribe that electors have to vote "winner take all". Maine and Nebraska already don't do that, and it too is perfectly Constitutional. So Congress ain't got squat to say about it, Shirley. It's out of their hands.

Moreover I just posted about 1960 where no fewer than fifteen faithless electors cast their votes for a guy who wasn't even running for President. They decided they didn't like either the Democrat or the Republican.

That's why I say nothing's settled until December 19; anything can happen.

and if 37 electors decide to not vote for Trump, and all 37 don't vote for Hillary, leaving both under the needed majority, it goes to the House for a vote.

1 vote per state.

Correctomundo. And if there were ever a candidate --- nay, two candidates -- who were voted Most Likely to Encounter Faithless Electors --- these would be the two.

 

[pinqy]

One other thing to keep in mind is that the House vote is only for President. (and it's by state, so only 50 total votes). Vice President is voted for by the Senate of the top 2 candidates.

So, even if enough faithless electors vote for other candidates, and somehow a third person is elected...he or she will have Pence or Kaine as VP.

And Minnesota and one or two other states do provide that faithless electors are replaced, but otherwise the vote stands. And while many states require pledges and some have criminal penalties, no penalty has ever been enforced and it's unclear if it would be constitutional to do so.

Fun fact: South Carolina did not have a popular vote for President or Vice President until after the Civil War.

 

[Pogo]

If anyone's interested here are the 25 states (in red) that have laws against "faithless electors" (although as pointed out elsehwere, such laws are rarely enforced and have been ignored in the past):

​

Among those without such laws is Utah, which can bring Evan McMullin into play.

(Source: Wiki)

 

[Godboy]

The electors are smart enough to know that should they not vote for Trump, this will be the last election the Electoral College will ever participate in.

Why is that?

...because the country would be pissed, and it wouldnt just be republicans. Whats the point of having an electoral college if they just go with the popular vote in the end anyway?

 

[Pogo]

The electors are smart enough to know that should they not vote for Trump, this will be the last election the Electoral College will ever participate in.

Why is that?

...because the country would be pissed, and it wouldnt just be republicans. Whats the point of having an electoral college if they just go with the popular vote in the end anyway?

Hey, in a divisive competition there's always somebody who doesn't get what they want and will be pissed about it.

But how does that eliminate the Electoral College itself?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Trump won. He will be the President. Threatening to kill the electors will have no effect.

 

[Pogo]

Trump won. He will be the President. Threatening to kill the electors will have no effect.

But what if said electors are also pot smokers?

Bang bang.

 

[Godboy]

The electors are smart enough to know that should they not vote for Trump, this will be the last election the Electoral College will ever participate in.

Why is that?

...because the country would be pissed, and it wouldnt just be republicans. Whats the point of having an electoral college if they just go with the popular vote in the end anyway?

Hey, in a divisive competition there's always somebody who doesn't get what they want and will be pissed about it.

But how does that eliminate the Electoral College itself?

Sorry retard, i dont have time to explain it to you twice.

 

[S.J.]

his is a pipe dream. Even if some electors switched their vote, they would simply be replaced and that vote would be worthless. As a last line of defense, Congress could overturn any butthurt elector who refused to vote for the candidate of his/her state who got the most votes.

No it couldn't, clown shoes. Doesn't work that way at all. Guess Ringel was right about civics class.

No Bubbles, actually the Constitution leaves great latitude to the several states as to how they pick their electors, and how they set the rules for them. That's up to the state legislatures. And nowhere does the Constitution say those electors have to vote winner-take-all. Two states already don't, and many have split in the past. Including 1960 as I posted above.

Oh the density.....

Yeah, yeah, you think you know everything, you don't know shit. Congress meets on Jan. 6, 2017 to count the electoral votes. They have the power to overturn any faithless electors rogue votes. You truly are an idiot. Just accept your defeat, Hillary Clinton is not going to be president, ever.
No, the Electoral College won’t make Clinton president instead of Trump

>> According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, about 30 of the 50 states have passed laws "binding" their electors to vote in accordance with the presidential popular vote in their state. But in most, the penalty for not doing so is only a fine, and it’s unclear whether stiffer penalties would hold up in court — it’s never been tested, and the Constitution does appear to give the electors the right to make the final call. Furthermore, there are still 20 or so states that haven’t even tried to bind their electors.

This isn’t just theoretical. Richard Berg-Andersson lists nine electors who have indeed gone “rogue” and refused to support their state’s presidential choice in the past 100 years. Their votes were all counted as cast, though there have never been sufficient numbers of them to overturn a presidential election result. <<​

--- that's your own link talkin' Twinkletoes.

Now here's one of mine:

>> And state legislatures have modified the rules for the selection of presidential electors when they worry that the people of the state will vote for a disfavored candidate. In 1892, for instance, Democrats gained control of the Michigan legislature. They decided that presidential electors should be appointed according to popular vote totals in each congressional district, as opposed to the statewide winner-take-all system that had previously existed. Michiganders had consistently voted for a slate of Republican electors in the recent past, and the move to elections by district guaranteed that Democrats would win at least a few of electoral votes.

In McPherson v. Blacker, the Supreme Court approved Michigan’s move and found that the mode of appointing electors was “exclusively” reserved to the states. The court would not interfere with the state legislature’s decision, whatever the reason. <<
​

It's strictly up to each state legislature to determine how they pick electors. They don't even have to hold an Election Day. That's just bread and circus. And again, not only does the Constitution not interfere with that, but NOWHERE does it prescribe that electors have to vote "winner take all". Maine and Nebraska already don't do that, and it too is perfectly Constitutional. So Congress ain't got squat to say about it, Shirley. It's out of their hands.

Moreover I just posted about 1960 where no fewer than fifteen faithless electors cast their votes for a guy who wasn't even running for President. They decided they didn't like either the Democrat or the Republican.

That's why I say nothing's settled until December 19; anything can happen.

As I've already explained but you either didn't read it or you didn't understand it, Congress can and would correct any faithless votes on Jan. 6. It doesn't matter WHAT happens Dec. 19 because Congress has the last word. Try to keep up, chief.

 

[S.J.]

his is a pipe dream. Even if some electors switched their vote, they would simply be replaced and that vote would be worthless. As a last line of defense, Congress could overturn any butthurt elector who refused to vote for the candidate of his/her state who got the most votes.

No it couldn't, clown shoes. Doesn't work that way at all. Guess Ringel was right about civics class.

No Bubbles, actually the Constitution leaves great latitude to the several states as to how they pick their electors, and how they set the rules for them. That's up to the state legislatures. And nowhere does the Constitution say those electors have to vote winner-take-all. Two states already don't, and many have split in the past. Including 1960 as I posted above.

Oh the density.....

Yeah, yeah, you think you know everything, you don't know shit. Congress meets on Jan. 6, 2017 to count the electoral votes. They have the power to overturn any faithless electors rogue votes. You truly are an idiot. Just accept your defeat, Hillary Clinton is not going to be president, ever.
No, the Electoral College won’t make Clinton president instead of Trump

>> According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, about 30 of the 50 states have passed laws "binding" their electors to vote in accordance with the presidential popular vote in their state. But in most, the penalty for not doing so is only a fine, and it’s unclear whether stiffer penalties would hold up in court — it’s never been tested, and the Constitution does appear to give the electors the right to make the final call. Furthermore, there are still 20 or so states that haven’t even tried to bind their electors.

This isn’t just theoretical. Richard Berg-Andersson lists nine electors who have indeed gone “rogue” and refused to support their state’s presidential choice in the past 100 years. Their votes were all counted as cast, though there have never been sufficient numbers of them to overturn a presidential election result. <<​

--- that's your own link talkin' Twinkletoes.

Now here's one of mine:

>> And state legislatures have modified the rules for the selection of presidential electors when they worry that the people of the state will vote for a disfavored candidate. In 1892, for instance, Democrats gained control of the Michigan legislature. They decided that presidential electors should be appointed according to popular vote totals in each congressional district, as opposed to the statewide winner-take-all system that had previously existed. Michiganders had consistently voted for a slate of Republican electors in the recent past, and the move to elections by district guaranteed that Democrats would win at least a few of electoral votes.

In McPherson v. Blacker, the Supreme Court approved Michigan’s move and found that the mode of appointing electors was “exclusively” reserved to the states. The court would not interfere with the state legislature’s decision, whatever the reason. <<
​

It's strictly up to each state legislature to determine how they pick electors. They don't even have to hold an Election Day. That's just bread and circus. And again, not only does the Constitution not interfere with that, but NOWHERE does it prescribe that electors have to vote "winner take all". Maine and Nebraska already don't do that, and it too is perfectly Constitutional. So Congress ain't got squat to say about it, Shirley. It's out of their hands.

Moreover I just posted about 1960 where no fewer than fifteen faithless electors cast their votes for a guy who wasn't even running for President. They decided they didn't like either the Democrat or the Republican.

That's why I say nothing's settled until December 19; anything can happen.

and if 37 electors decide to not vote for Trump, and all 37 don't vote for Hillary, leaving both under the needed majority, it goes to the House for a vote.

1 vote per state.

Pogo doesn't understand, he's still holding out hope Hillary is somehow gonna be our president.

 

[Pogo]

his is a pipe dream. Even if some electors switched their vote, they would simply be replaced and that vote would be worthless. As a last line of defense, Congress could overturn any butthurt elector who refused to vote for the candidate of his/her state who got the most votes.

No it couldn't, clown shoes. Doesn't work that way at all. Guess Ringel was right about civics class.

No Bubbles, actually the Constitution leaves great latitude to the several states as to how they pick their electors, and how they set the rules for them. That's up to the state legislatures. And nowhere does the Constitution say those electors have to vote winner-take-all. Two states already don't, and many have split in the past. Including 1960 as I posted above.

Oh the density.....

Yeah, yeah, you think you know everything, you don't know shit. Congress meets on Jan. 6, 2017 to count the electoral votes. They have the power to overturn any faithless electors rogue votes. You truly are an idiot. Just accept your defeat, Hillary Clinton is not going to be president, ever.
No, the Electoral College won’t make Clinton president instead of Trump

>> According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, about 30 of the 50 states have passed laws "binding" their electors to vote in accordance with the presidential popular vote in their state. But in most, the penalty for not doing so is only a fine, and it’s unclear whether stiffer penalties would hold up in court — it’s never been tested, and the Constitution does appear to give the electors the right to make the final call. Furthermore, there are still 20 or so states that haven’t even tried to bind their electors.

This isn’t just theoretical. Richard Berg-Andersson lists nine electors who have indeed gone “rogue” and refused to support their state’s presidential choice in the past 100 years. Their votes were all counted as cast, though there have never been sufficient numbers of them to overturn a presidential election result. <<​

--- that's your own link talkin' Twinkletoes.

Now here's one of mine:

>> And state legislatures have modified the rules for the selection of presidential electors when they worry that the people of the state will vote for a disfavored candidate. In 1892, for instance, Democrats gained control of the Michigan legislature. They decided that presidential electors should be appointed according to popular vote totals in each congressional district, as opposed to the statewide winner-take-all system that had previously existed. Michiganders had consistently voted for a slate of Republican electors in the recent past, and the move to elections by district guaranteed that Democrats would win at least a few of electoral votes.

In McPherson v. Blacker, the Supreme Court approved Michigan’s move and found that the mode of appointing electors was “exclusively” reserved to the states. The court would not interfere with the state legislature’s decision, whatever the reason. <<
​

It's strictly up to each state legislature to determine how they pick electors. They don't even have to hold an Election Day. That's just bread and circus. And again, not only does the Constitution not interfere with that, but NOWHERE does it prescribe that electors have to vote "winner take all". Maine and Nebraska already don't do that, and it too is perfectly Constitutional. So Congress ain't got squat to say about it, Shirley. It's out of their hands.

Moreover I just posted about 1960 where no fewer than fifteen faithless electors cast their votes for a guy who wasn't even running for President. They decided they didn't like either the Democrat or the Republican.

That's why I say nothing's settled until December 19; anything can happen.

As I've already explained but you either didn't read it or you didn't understand it, Congress can and would correct any faithless votes on Jan. 6. It doesn't matter WHAT happens Dec. 19 because Congress has the last word. Try to keep up, chief.

Uh --- no they don't Puffy. Who the electors are, and how they vote, is up to each state. Look it up.
Actually you don't need to look it up since I already posted a reference. Maybe you should quit going every time you find out that what you thought you knew was bullshit.

 

[Pogo]

The electors are smart enough to know that should they not vote for Trump, this will be the last election the Electoral College will ever participate in.

Why is that?

...because the country would be pissed, and it wouldnt just be republicans. Whats the point of having an electoral college if they just go with the popular vote in the end anyway?

Hey, in a divisive competition there's always somebody who doesn't get what they want and will be pissed about it.

But how does that eliminate the Electoral College itself?

Sorry retard, i dont have time to explain it to you twice.

Once would suffice. If you had an answer.

Hey, two down in thirty seconds. If this thread were a video game I'd be at level 16 by now.

 

[S.J.]

Who the electors are, and how they vote, is up to each state.

True, but what you fail to comprehend is that Congress can overturn them. Sorry you're so thick.

 

[Auld Phart]

Who the electors are, and how they vote, is up to each state.

True, but what you fail to comprehend is that Congress can overturn them. Sorry you're so thick.

Congress can only count them