CSNbbs

Democratic Elector says he won't cast Washington's vote for her.

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/arti...or-clinton

Priceless.

If she wins 270-268 and he abstains, get your popcorn ready.

Wow

(11-04-2016 07:14 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ]Priceless.

If she wins 270-268 and he abstains, get your popcorn ready.

This is why you hand out Elector slots to party loyalists and not as candy to satisfy some constituency or assuage rogue elements.

I am a HUGE proponent of the Electoral College system. But something should be done about faithless electors.

(11-04-2016 07:36 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-04-2016 07:14 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ]Priceless.

If she wins 270-268 and he abstains, get your popcorn ready.

This is why you hand out Elector slots to party loyalists and not as candy to satisfy some constituency or assuage rogue elements.

I am a HUGE proponent of the Electoral College system. But something should be done about faithless electors.

Doesn't the requirement of voting for the winner of your state really just defeat the purpose of the EC? Why even have an EC?

Historically, faithless electors have said that if their vote would flip the election to the other party, they wouldn't have done it (i.e. Margarette Leach in 1988 against Dukakis). This is an attempt to get publicity to whatever their cause is imo.

(11-04-2016 07:47 PM)EigenEagle Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-04-2016 07:36 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-04-2016 07:14 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ]Priceless.

If she wins 270-268 and he abstains, get your popcorn ready.

This is why you hand out Elector slots to party loyalists and not as candy to satisfy some constituency or assuage rogue elements.

I am a HUGE proponent of the Electoral College system. But something should be done about faithless electors.

Doesn't the requirement of voting for the winner of your state really just defeat the purpose of the EC? Why even have an EC?

I don't really care about the Electors themselves. They are essentially unnecessary except in really weird cases. I care about the apportioning of Electoral Votes by States. That process could be automatic as far as I'm concerned.

The Electoral College system is important to Federalism because it prevents candidates from going into Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Houston, urban/suburban areas and trying to run up 90% vote totals. It forces candidates to put together a broader geographic coalition. A more national base of support.

I think that is pretty important. We have our differences...but they are not at the moment sectional differences. The biggest danger to the structure of the Republic are sectional differences as we saw in the 1860's. They create Civil War.

Right now candidates are actually interested in New Hampshire, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa.....but without the Electoral College system it is more cost effective to just try to run up vote totals in the metros than jack with scattered populations in the outback.

At some point....flyover country would (legitimately) feel as if they were not represented in the Executive Branch of the Union.

Cheap words.

If he actually follows through with it ... then his vote should be revoked, and his elector status should be terminated. Then a new elector picked, and that person's vote gets to count.

I applaud the guys refusal to vote for a corrupt lying grifter. I don't think it should be up to his decision, though.

537 others ought to join him in refusing to vote for either pos.

(11-04-2016 08:01 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-04-2016 07:47 PM)EigenEagle Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-04-2016 07:36 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-04-2016 07:14 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ]Priceless.

If she wins 270-268 and he abstains, get your popcorn ready.

This is why you hand out Elector slots to party loyalists and not as candy to satisfy some constituency or assuage rogue elements.

I am a HUGE proponent of the Electoral College system. But something should be done about faithless electors.

Doesn't the requirement of voting for the winner of your state really just defeat the purpose of the EC? Why even have an EC?

I don't really care about the Electors themselves. They are essentially unnecessary except in really weird cases. I care about the apportioning of Electoral Votes by States. That process could be automatic as far as I'm concerned.

The Electoral College system is important to Federalism because it prevents candidates from going into Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Houston, urban/suburban areas and trying to run up 90% vote totals. It forces candidates to put together a broader geographic coalition. A more national base of support.

I think that is pretty important. We have our differences...but they are not at the moment sectional differences. The biggest danger to the structure of the Republic are sectional differences as we saw in the 1860's. They create Civil War.

Right now candidates are actually interested in New Hampshire, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa.....but without the Electoral College system it is more cost effective to just try to run up vote totals in the metros than jack with scattered populations in the outback.

At some point....flyover country would (legitimately) feel as if they were not represented in the Executive Branch of the Union.

Well said - exactly why the Elecoral College exists and should continue to do so. The big metros already exert a ton of influence as it is.

(11-05-2016 11:07 AM)Crebman Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-04-2016 08:01 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-04-2016 07:47 PM)EigenEagle Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-04-2016 07:36 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-04-2016 07:14 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ]Priceless.

If she wins 270-268 and he abstains, get your popcorn ready.

This is why you hand out Elector slots to party loyalists and not as candy to satisfy some constituency or assuage rogue elements.

I am a HUGE proponent of the Electoral College system. But something should be done about faithless electors.

Doesn't the requirement of voting for the winner of your state really just defeat the purpose of the EC? Why even have an EC?

I don't really care about the Electors themselves. They are essentially unnecessary except in really weird cases. I care about the apportioning of Electoral Votes by States. That process could be automatic as far as I'm concerned.

The Electoral College system is important to Federalism because it prevents candidates from going into Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Houston, urban/suburban areas and trying to run up 90% vote totals. It forces candidates to put together a broader geographic coalition. A more national base of support.

I think that is pretty important. We have our differences...but they are not at the moment sectional differences. The biggest danger to the structure of the Republic are sectional differences as we saw in the 1860's. They create Civil War.

Right now candidates are actually interested in New Hampshire, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa.....but without the Electoral College system it is more cost effective to just try to run up vote totals in the metros than jack with scattered populations in the outback.

At some point....flyover country would (legitimately) feel as if they were not represented in the Executive Branch of the Union.

Well said - exactly why the Elecoral College exists and should continue to do so. The big metros already exert a ton of influence as it is.

The electoral college is a great example of the foresight of our forefathers in writing the Constitution, with the most credit going to John Q Adams who had spent a lot of time studying other countries' governing docs and had written the Constitution for the state of Mass.

In their day, it would've seemed that voting for president via the popular vote would've worked fairly well and been easier but the writers had the foresight to look into the crystal ball to see that with the growth of cities, politicians in the future could appeal to concentrated areas to win and ignore more sparsely populated areas.

Crooked Hillary will never be president.