U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 11-19-2016, 06:59 AM
 
71,504 posts, read 30,016,878 times
Reputation: 14078

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catgirl64 View Post
What's with the idea that civil war would be okay?

If you meant something else by saying the country is too big, and "the breaking of this up" would be a good thing, by all means, I withdraw my remark.
Fair enough. I'm not a fan of war and there is no need for one. I support the idea of people simply ignoring the rules and regulations being regurgitated out of D.C. They aren't going to do anything about it.

 
Old 11-19-2016, 07:03 AM
 
Location: Old Hippie Heaven
16,144 posts, read 7,089,742 times
Reputation: 9150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catgirl64 View Post
It's a valid point. There is very little to prevent electors from voting for someone other than the person who carried their state.
Two of Washington's electors said they would not support Clinton, even though she won the state.

Washington state has a law that requires electors to cast their votes for the state's winner. But such laws have never been tested in court. Plenty of people think those laws don't pass constitutional muster. I'm not so sure that's so, but in any case, I doubt there would be enough dissenting electors to "unelect" Trump.
 
Old 11-19-2016, 07:04 AM
 
9,778 posts, read 7,644,489 times
Reputation: 6156
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg View Post
Two of Washington's electors said they would not support Clinton, even though she won the state.

Washington state has a law that requires electors to cast their votes for the state's winner. But such laws have never been tested in court. Plenty of people think those laws don't pass constitutional muster. I'm not so sure that's so, but in any case, I doubt there would be enough dissenting electors to "unelect" Trump.
Their penalty would be a 1000$ fine.
 
Old 11-19-2016, 07:46 AM
 
Location: Texas
32,520 posts, read 17,636,768 times
Reputation: 18659
Talking Bold Talk!

Quote:
Originally Posted by bentlebee View Post
If the electoral voting will cause an upset than we will have some kind of civil war in the USA
Please let us know when you'll fire the first shot.

 
Old 11-19-2016, 07:58 AM
 
71,504 posts, read 30,016,878 times
Reputation: 14078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loud Majority View Post
Funny how you didn't complain about the EC until AFTER THE ELECTION and it turns out your candidate LOST. Let me guess, if Hillary would have won, you wouldn't have any issue with the EC. Go crush some more grapes for that fresh batch of WHINE
Truthfully his is not a whine. I'm not sure you bothered to read it very closely. He said that while he disagree with the EC, it is what it is, the law, so we abide by it.
 
Old 11-19-2016, 08:08 AM
 
Location: Texas
32,520 posts, read 17,636,768 times
Reputation: 18659
Until it's legally changed, we're stuck with the electoral college.

It's going to end up on the scrap heap of history eventually, because it's a relic of the late 18th century and is no longer relevant. Of course, there will be strong opposition from the GOP because in all four cases when the loser of the vote has been elevated to the WH, it's been a Pub.

The current fiasco is the worst of the four, with Clinton's lead now at 1.2 million votes and continuing to grow.

Trump was right when he kept whimpering about a rigged system, because that's precisely what the electoral college is. But it's legal and there's no amount of protests that will change the outcome.

Before it's permanently scrapped, I'd like to see a result where a Dem "wins" after losing the popular vote, because that's never happened. The sniveling juvenile outcry from the right would be a very amusing spectacle. Because even after Obama's two very decisive victories, they whined like a gut-shot coyote.

 
Old 11-19-2016, 08:33 AM
 
71,504 posts, read 30,016,878 times
Reputation: 14078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
Until it's legally changed, we're stuck with the electoral college.

It's going to end up on the scrap heap of history eventually, because it's a relic of the late 18th century and is no longer relevant. Of course, there will be strong opposition from the GOP because in all four cases when the loser of the vote has been elevated to the WH, it's been a Pub.
I'm not a Republican. I voted for Sander and then Stein. I support keeping it. That is why it is here to stay for the foreseeable future.

Quote:
The current fiasco is the worst of the four, with Clinton's lead now at 1.2 million votes and continuing to grow.

Trump was right when he kept whimpering about a rigged system, because that's precisely what the electoral college is. But it's legal and there's no amount of protests that will change the outcome.

Before it's permanently scrapped, I'd like to see a result where a Dem "wins" after losing the popular vote, because that's never happened. The sniveling juvenile outcry from the right would be a very amusing spectacle. Because even after Obama's two very decisive victories, they whined like a gut-shot coyote.

They may whine. It will make no difference then either.
 
Old 11-19-2016, 08:47 AM
 
4,851 posts, read 1,461,384 times
Reputation: 1571
Old Gringo,

You really think the small states are going to ratify an amendment making them irrelevant on the stage of POTUS elections by going to a nat pop vote that runs them over like a freight train ?

Ten states have 15 or more EC votes . 40 states have 14 or less EC votes, and of these 40 34 have 10 or less ( if I counted right while scrolling down) .

I don't see these states giving up their importance at the national level. Nor do I see conservative states giving up a system that favors states rights to go to a national system .
 
Old 11-19-2016, 09:41 AM
 
4,200 posts, read 1,535,511 times
Reputation: 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash View Post
You really think the small states are going to ratify an amendment making them irrelevant on the stage of POTUS elections by going to a nat pop vote that runs them over like a freight train ?
Why not? Under the EC system the small states are completely ignored unless they happen to be a swing state. How many times did the presidential candidates visit Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska or Maryland? None.

I think if we had a national popular vote there's a good chance they would do a "50 state tour" to energize as many supporters as possible and to win over fence-sitters. Truman did a 30,000-mile whistlestop tour by train and historians believe he won because of it.

Under a national popular vote there's an incentive to visit every state: there might only be 30% Democrats in Oklahoma, but every one of those votes count. Under the EC system the Dem candidate can ignore Oklahoma because the winner take all system makes their votes worthless. A popular vote would completely change campaign strategy -- it would have to be much more geographically distributed and not concentrated on a few "tipping point" precincts in a couple of states.
 
Old 11-19-2016, 10:57 AM
Status: "Ready to fly." (set 2 days ago)
 
Location: Here and now.
10,371 posts, read 2,809,607 times
Reputation: 11112
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg View Post
Two of Washington's electors said they would not support Clinton, even though she won the state.

Washington state has a law that requires electors to cast their votes for the state's winner. But such laws have never been tested in court. Plenty of people think those laws don't pass constitutional muster. I'm not so sure that's so, but in any case, I doubt there would be enough dissenting electors to "unelect" Trump.
I'm sure there wouldn't be, but if the election had been a lot closer, we could have had a situation where two people determined the outcome of a national election. Not a good situation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top