Open invite to Dems to make their final arugument for electors to defy their constiuents

[ColonelAngus]

I am opening this thread for out Progressive posters to make their complete and final appeal to the electors of the Trump winning precincts to defy their constituents and not vote for Trump.

Very specifically, why should the tell they constituents to fuck off and vote for whomever they desire?

Is the same encouragement given to those electors for precincts that Hillary won?

Because the president should be elected based on people - not acreage. Hillary has received approximately 2.8 millions more votes than Trump.

Cool. So you agree that Congress is unnecessary.

Popular vote for every issue. We can have votes every Tuesday.

Obamacare wouldn't not have passed, but that doesn't matter.

What the hell does Congress have to do with electing a president based on popular votes?

Congress is representative. We elect members of Congress to represent our municipatily in Federal issues. We do not have a popular vote on every bill, members of Congress vote on behalf of their constituents.

The electoral college in Presidential elections is based on the same theory, so if you want the popular vote to determine POTUS, it only stands to reason you want the popular vote to determine every federal issue that Congress currently votes on.

Funny. Well, sparky, what the hell does Congress have to do with electoral votes? Congress only comes into play if no one receives the required 270.

Electoral college is a representative vote, as is Congress.


I am not sure what we are discussing at this point. Do you think the electoral voters are going to make Hillary POTUS tomorrow?

 

[ColonelAngus]

Dem electors need to do the right thing and vote for Bernie

Definitely. It's the right thing to do. Snowflakes should consider pysically threatening those electors that vote Hillary instead of Sanders.

 

[KGB]

I am opening this thread for out Progressive posters to make their complete and final appeal to the electors of the Trump winning precincts to defy their constituents and not vote for Trump.

Very specifically, why should the tell they constituents to fuck off and vote for whomever they desire?

Is the same encouragement given to those electors for precincts that Hillary won?

Because the president should be elected based on people - not acreage. Hillary has received approximately 2.8 millions more votes than Trump.

Cool. So you agree that Congress is unnecessary.

Popular vote for every issue. We can have votes every Tuesday.

Obamacare wouldn't not have passed, but that doesn't matter.

What the hell does Congress have to do with electing a president based on popular votes?

Congress is representative. We elect members of Congress to represent our municipatily in Federal issues. We do not have a popular vote on every bill, members of Congress vote on behalf of their constituents.

The electoral college in Presidential elections is based on the same theory, so if you want the popular vote to determine POTUS, it only stands to reason you want the popular vote to determine every federal issue that Congress currently votes on.

Funny. Well, sparky, what the hell does Congress have to do with electoral votes? Congress only comes into play if no one receives the required 270. The electoral college is as outdated as the 2nd Amendment.

Wasn't aware that an enumerated right has an expiration date...

 

[KGB]

Because the president should be elected based on people - not acreage. Hillary has received approximately 2.8 millions more votes than Trump.

Cool. So you agree that Congress is unnecessary.

Popular vote for every issue. We can have votes every Tuesday.

Obamacare wouldn't not have passed, but that doesn't matter.

What the hell does Congress have to do with electing a president based on popular votes?

Congress is representative. We elect members of Congress to represent our municipatily in Federal issues. We do not have a popular vote on every bill, members of Congress vote on behalf of their constituents.

The electoral college in Presidential elections is based on the same theory, so if you want the popular vote to determine POTUS, it only stands to reason you want the popular vote to determine every federal issue that Congress currently votes on.

Funny. Well, sparky, what the hell does Congress have to do with electoral votes? Congress only comes into play if no one receives the required 270.

Electoral college is a representative vote, as is Congress.


I am not sure what we are discussing at this point. Do you think the electoral voters are going to make Hillary POTUS tomorrow?

Hillary is done. The Clinton era is finished..

 

[Pogo]

Dem electors need to do the right thing and vote for Bernie

Definitely. It's the right thing to do. Snowflakes should consider pysically threatening those electors that vote Hillary instead of Sanders.

Which they have the latitude to do. I believe there's one in Washington (state) that has voiced exactly that intention.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Waiting for the reasons that electoral voters should defy their constituents Nd not vote for Trump tomorrow.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Dem electors need to do the right thing and vote for Bernie

Definitely. It's the right thing to do. Snowflakes should consider pysically threatening those electors that vote Hillary instead of Sanders.

Which they have the latitude to do. I believe there's one in Washington (state) that has voiced exactly that intention.

It is certainly reasonable if you are operating In the theoretical works that elector voters should defy tier constituents and not vote Trump. Of course the same should hold true for electoral voters from regions that voted for Hillary.

 

[Pogo]

Waiting for the reasons that electoral voters should defy their constituents Nd not vote for Trump tomorrow.

While you're "waiting" try actually "reading" the first post I made here. Post 14. You said "make the argument"--- I did exactly that.

And btw Electors don't have "constituents". Representatives have those. Electors are not representatives.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Make your argument to electors as to why they should defy the will of the people and cast their vote for someone other than who their constiuency voter for.

I'm not a Dem and certainly not old enough to be a Progressive but I'll chime in. The EC was intended by its designers to be a deliberative body --- not a rubber stamp. The idea of a robotic automatic echoing of a popular vote, or of anything, would have been abhorrent to the Founders who fashioned it. Hamilton specifically cited its role as a filter to stop the advance of an electee who has ties to a foreign government, and noted that the masses could be hoodwinked by a con artist --------- both of which sound prescient now. Madison tried to amend the Constitution to prohibit the "winner take all" system ---- even though it would weaken his state.

As I endlessly point out as the unanswerable rhetorical question ---- if Electors are supposed to do nothing more than cast a vote for their statewide winner, then what do we need human intervention for? That's a simple matter of math. So either the Electoral College is there to exercise its own judgment OR there's no reason for the EC to exist. You can't have both.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

To be clear..."foreign involvement" means the DNC leaked emails?

 

[ColonelAngus]

Waiting for the reasons that electoral voters should defy their constituents Nd not vote for Trump tomorrow.

While you're "waiting" try actually "reading" the first post I made here. Post 14. You said "make the argument"--- I did exactly that.

And btw Electors don't have "constituents". Representatives have those. Electors are not representatives.

Of course they are a representative body. They votes based on what the voters voices at the polls.

Of the electoral college has nothing to do with the popular vote, why do we have the vote?

 

[Pogo]

Waiting for the reasons that electoral voters should defy their constituents Nd not vote for Trump tomorrow.

While you're "waiting" try actually "reading" the first post I made here. Post 14. You said "make the argument"--- I did exactly that.

And btw Electors don't have "constituents". Representatives have those. Electors are not representatives.

Of course they are a representative body. They votes based on what the voters voices at the polls.

No they are NOT representatives --- they're proxy voters for their state. And in that role they vote with deliberation. If that were not the case ------- we wouldn't need Electors. We'd just send a number in.

If they were representatives in that role they'd be representing the way the state voted. I've just gone over the numbers yet again and the total of states that voted unanimously for anybody is ------------ still zero.

Of the electoral college has nothing to do with the popular vote, why do we have the vote?

Exactly. Why indeed. And why does everybody in a state whose vote didn't agree with the majority have their vote thrown away? Bread and circus for the unwashed who think they're participating, that's why.

And for a long time in many places ---- we didn't have a pop vote. The state legislature just --- handled it. South Carolina didn't have one until after the Civil War. Colorado didn't have one in 1876 because it was too much trouble.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Waiting for the reasons that electoral voters should defy their constituents Nd not vote for Trump tomorrow.

While you're "waiting" try actually "reading" the first post I made here. Post 14. You said "make the argument"--- I did exactly that.

And btw Electors don't have "constituents". Representatives have those. Electors are not representatives.

Of course they are a representative body. They votes based on what the voters voices at the polls.

No they are NOT representatives --- they're proxy voters for their state. And in that role they vote with deliberation. If that were not the case ------- we wouldn't need Electors. We'd just send a number in.

If they were representatives in that role they'd be representing the way the state voted. I've just gone over the numbers yet again and the total of states that voted unanimously for anybody is ------------ still zero.

Of the electoral college has nothing to do with the popular vote, why do we have the vote?

Exactly. Why indeed. And why does everybody in a state whose vote didn't agree with the majority have their vote thrown away? Bread and circus for the unwashed who think they're participating, that's why.

And for a long time in many places ---- we didn't have a pop vote. The state legislature just --- handled it. South Carolina didn't have one until after the Civil War. Colorado didn't have one in 1876 because it was too much trouble.

Let me try this one last time.

Most states have the agreement that the electors vote for whom their state voted. In other words, their vote represents the vote from their states.

I am not sure what you are arguing.

What do you contend will happen tomorrow? Will someone other than Trump win the vote?

 

[occupied]

The sparsely populated states need something to make sure that their voices are heard but it seems more and more that those voices originate in Washington lobbying firms anyway. Seems the trouble is not so much in the electoral system but who's voices actually get through. This election was all about what the media was saying, not what people were saying. All these people walking around thinking they sent the government a clear message with Trump's election when everything they believe came directly from politicians and pundits in Washington. The only message Washington got was that they can scare the working class into voting for billionaires.

 

[Pogo]

Waiting for the reasons that electoral voters should defy their constituents Nd not vote for Trump tomorrow.

While you're "waiting" try actually "reading" the first post I made here. Post 14. You said "make the argument"--- I did exactly that.

And btw Electors don't have "constituents". Representatives have those. Electors are not representatives.

Of course they are a representative body. They votes based on what the voters voices at the polls.

No they are NOT representatives --- they're proxy voters for their state. And in that role they vote with deliberation. If that were not the case ------- we wouldn't need Electors. We'd just send a number in.

If they were representatives in that role they'd be representing the way the state voted. I've just gone over the numbers yet again and the total of states that voted unanimously for anybody is ------------ still zero.

Of the electoral college has nothing to do with the popular vote, why do we have the vote?

Exactly. Why indeed. And why does everybody in a state whose vote didn't agree with the majority have their vote thrown away? Bread and circus for the unwashed who think they're participating, that's why.

And for a long time in many places ---- we didn't have a pop vote. The state legislature just --- handled it. South Carolina didn't have one until after the Civil War. Colorado didn't have one in 1876 because it was too much trouble.

Let me try this one last time.

Most states have the agreement that the electors vote for whom their state voted. In other words, their vote represents the vote from their states.

I am not sure what you are arguing.

What do you contend will happen tomorrow? Will someone other than Trump win the vote?

That's possible. Unlikely but it would be within the function of the EC. Less unlikely and also possible would be that the final EC tally presents no one with 270 which throws the decision into Congress. Again that would be within what the EC is designed to do.

As it (usually) functions today the EC vote does not reflect the vote of any state, certainly true of 48 of them that use the "winner take all" model. Because that's telling Congress that "hey, everybody here in Michigan voted for Rump", which is plainly bullshit.

And the only reason they do that is a mob mentality snowball. One state (I forget which) adopted it so that their "favorite son" candy would get extra vote-bling. Then the next state figured "if they're gonna do that, we have to do it too and protect our favorite son". And so on, the whole thing snowballed. Madison, who took part in creating the EC, publicly railed against this practice and tried to have it abolished even though his state was benefiting from it and stood to lose influence ---because it was the right thing to do.

Again, in simple terms ---- if the only function of the EC were to consolidate blocs of votes according to who won that state's PV ------ you wouldn't need human intervention. You'd just report the number and that would be that. But that's not what we have and not at all how it was envisioned.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I believe Donald Trump is mentally insane.

He doesn't give a damn or have the temperament to fight for peace.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Waiting for the reasons that electoral voters should defy their constituents Nd not vote for Trump tomorrow.

While you're "waiting" try actually "reading" the first post I made here. Post 14. You said "make the argument"--- I did exactly that.

And btw Electors don't have "constituents". Representatives have those. Electors are not representatives.

Of course they are a representative body. They votes based on what the voters voices at the polls.

No they are NOT representatives --- they're proxy voters for their state. And in that role they vote with deliberation. If that were not the case ------- we wouldn't need Electors. We'd just send a number in.

If they were representatives in that role they'd be representing the way the state voted. I've just gone over the numbers yet again and the total of states that voted unanimously for anybody is ------------ still zero.

Of the electoral college has nothing to do with the popular vote, why do we have the vote?

Exactly. Why indeed. And why does everybody in a state whose vote didn't agree with the majority have their vote thrown away? Bread and circus for the unwashed who think they're participating, that's why.

And for a long time in many places ---- we didn't have a pop vote. The state legislature just --- handled it. South Carolina didn't have one until after the Civil War. Colorado didn't have one in 1876 because it was too much trouble.

Let me try this one last time.

Most states have the agreement that the electors vote for whom their state voted. In other words, their vote represents the vote from their states.

I am not sure what you are arguing.

What do you contend will happen tomorrow? Will someone other than Trump win the vote?

That's possible. Unlikely but it would be within the function of the EC. Less unlikely and also possible would be that the final EC tally presents no one with 270 which throws the decision into Congress. Again that would be within what the EC is designed to do.

As it (usually) functions today the EC vote does not reflect the vote of any state, certainly true of 48 of them that use the "winner take all" model. Because that's telling Congress that "hey, everybody here in Michigan voted for Rump", which is plainly bullshit.

And the only reason they do that is a mob mentality snowball. One state (I forget which) adopted it so that their "favorite son" candy would get extra vote-bling. Then the next state figured "if they're gonna do that, we have to do it too and protect our favorite son". And so on, the whole thing snowballed. Madison, who took part in creating the EC, publicly railed against this practice and tried to have it abolished even though his state was benefiting from it and stood to lose influence ---because it was the right thing to do.

Again, in simple terms ---- if the only function of the EC were to consolidate blocs of votes according to who won that state's PV ------ you wouldn't need human intervention. You'd just report the number and that would be that. But that's not what we have and not at all how it was envisioned.

We could hold the election again, and with your rules, but can we agree that we all know and agree to the rules going into the election?

 

[beagle9]

The bias just continues unabated from the left... Booted up the comp, and clicked on the (left leaning liberal biased) E in order to bring up the browser, and what do I see in the automatic events listing msn scrolling window payne below ?? Well none other than Hitler addressing a committee in Germany on this day Dec.19 I guess. No caption to explain the photo, but when you clicked on the window it proceeded to list things that happened on this day (unrelated to Hitler), on Dec.19 through out world history. Now how coincidental do you all think it was for a leftist run MSN undoubtedly, to have had Hitler plastered in the events front page window of things that happened on Dec.19 ????? If that wasn't a biased coincidence or code message being put out, then I don't know what is. I know, I know, conspiracies right... LOL... No caption to explain what the photo was about is what did strike my thinking like this on the matter.

 

[buckeye45_73]

No one believes that Trump will not be inaugurated.

Mods, kill the thread.

Again starkey doesnt read threads....they still have hope and im happy to play on that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one believes that Trump will not be inaugurated.

Mods, kill the thread.

Again starkey doesnt read threads....they still have hope and im happy to play on that.

HRC is beaten. End of that story. Now Trump will have to step out or he will be forced to step out.

 

[danielpalos]

I am opening this thread for our Progressive posters to make their complete and final appeal to the electors of the Trump winning precincts to defy their constituents and not vote for Trump.

Very specifically, why should the tell their constituents to fuck off and vote for whomever they desire?

Is the same encouragement given to those electors for precincts that Hillary won?

I believe female Electors should get more Collegiate in their deliberations.