The Electorial College: A poll

[Jersey mike]

"According to the Constitution, chosen electors of the Electoral College are the real people who will vote for president, when they meet on Dec. 19 in their respective state capitals."

"However, there is technically nothing stopping any of the electors from voting their conscience and refusing to support the candidate to whom they were bound, or from abstaining from voting altogether."

"But given the high dissatisfaction with Trump among Republicans, a few faithless GOP electors could well go rogue next month."

https://nypost.com/2016/11/09/the-one-scenario-that-could-still-get-hillary-into-the-white-house/

[Gavin_Sons]

If this is the case then why even have an election? That would just prove your vote does not matter

[Serk]

At this point anything's possible, and there might be one or two faithless electors, but Trump won by enough of a margin even that wouldn't change anything, it would take a full on revolt of faithless electors to change the outcome.

[The emperor has no clothes]

At this point anything's possible, and there might be one or two faithless electors, but Trump won by enough of a margin even that wouldn't change anything, it would take a full on revolt of faithless electors to change the outcome.

Exactly. It ain't going to happen.

[Alpha Dog]

"According to the Constitution, chosen electors of the Electoral College are the real people who will vote for president, when they meet on Dec. 19 in their respective state capitals."

"However, there is technically nothing stopping any of the electors from voting their conscience and refusing to support the candidate to whom they were bound, or from abstaining from voting altogether."

"But given the high dissatisfaction with Trump among Republicans, a few faithless GOP electors could well go rogue next month."

https://nypost.com/2016/11/09/the-one-scenario-that-could-still-get-hillary-into-the-white-house/

They ain't dissatisfied anymore.  They are gushing all over him  ( except for a handful who carry zero weight).  Today Paul Ryan was so darn enthusiastic   ( interview with Brett Bair  and others ) he could not wait for him and Donald to get to work on the problems.  He said maintaining a huge margin in the Congress and retaining the Senate was done entirely by Trump.  This has been spouted by others also and indeed it is true.  Think what the margins would have been had they been all in in the first place.  Right now the Republicans are stronger all over the board than at any time since the 1920s are in place to make heads spin with what can be accomplished. 

No hell would freeze first.    With this kind of year maybe it will

[therapist]

Hoover easily won the Republican nomination, despite having no elected-office experience. He enjoyed  majority in both the House and Senate. Not many "checks and balances".
Started serving in 1929...Hmm, what else happened in that year?

[Gavin_Sons]

Hoover easily won the Republican nomination, despite having no elected-office experience. He enjoyed  majority in both the House and Senate. Not many "checks and balances".
Started serving in 1929...Hmm, what else happened in that year?

I love how you liberals go back 87 years to compare today events with. This is not the same country politically as it was 87 years ago. I know they say history will repeat itself. but comparing todays politics to the ones 87 years ago is just crazy. You must be talking about the stock market crash. History has already repeated itself in 2008 under Obama. 

[scooperhsd]

I thought this was going to be a poll about whether we need the Electoral College. I've ALWAYS (since High School Civics) thought the Electoral College is an anachronism in today's society. (since the 1860's with the telegraph making almost instant communications possible) . Don't get me wrong - it WAS necessary when the Constitution was first passed - but I think it has outlived it's usefulness. We've had too many recent elections where the Electoral vote was different than the popular vote.

The problem with getting rid of it - needs a Constitutional Amendment - and by design - that is not an easy process.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Hoover easily won the Republican nomination, despite having no elected-office experience. He enjoyed  majority in both the House and Senate. Not many "checks and balances".
Started serving in 1929...Hmm, what else happened in that year?

I love how you liberals go back 87 years to compare today events with. This is not the same country politically as it was 87 years ago. I know they say history will repeat itself. but comparing todays politics to the ones 87 years ago is just crazy. You must be talking about the stock market crash. History has already repeated itself in 2008 under Obama. 

the financial crisis and stock market crash occurred in October 2008. Obama was elected in November. He didn't become president until January 2009. But don't let he facts get in the way of your narrative. 

[baldo]

Hoover easily won the Republican nomination, despite having no elected-office experience. He enjoyed  majority in both the House and Senate. Not many "checks and balances".
Started serving in 1929...Hmm, what else happened in that year?

I love how you liberals go back 87 years to compare today events with. This is not the same country politically as it was 87 years ago. I know they say history will repeat itself. but comparing todays politics to the ones 87 years ago is just crazy. You must be talking about the stock market crash. History has already repeated itself in 2008 under Obama. 

the financial crisis and stock market crash occurred in October 2008. Obama was elected in November. He didn't become president until January 2009. But don't let he facts get in the way of your narrative. 

  .....ouch.....

[Sorcerer]

It seems that the electoral collage is dum, bad, out dated ......... Depending on who's ox is being gored.

[The emperor has no clothes]

It seems that the electoral collage is dum, bad, out dated ......... Depending on who's ox is being gored.

Not really. I didn't want Trump to win. (That might be the understatement of the year) But I have always been in favor of our Electoral College system. Actually if you read the posts here and talk to people in general, it appears there are just as many opposed to it on both sides. I think some would be best served to take some night classes at their community colleges and understand our form of government.

[sleepngbear]

"According to the Constitution, chosen electors of the Electoral College are the real people who will vote for president, when they meet on Dec. 19 in their respective state capitals."

"However, there is technically nothing stopping any of the electors from voting their conscience and refusing to support the candidate to whom they were bound, or from abstaining from voting altogether."

"But given the high dissatisfaction with Trump among Republicans, a few faithless GOP electors could well go rogue next month."

https://nypost.com/2016/11/09/the-one-scenario-that-could-still-get-hillary-into-the-white-house/

They ain't dissatisfied anymore.  They are gushing all over him  ( except for a handful who carry zero weight).  Today Paul Ryan was so darn enthusiastic   ( interview with Brett Bair  and others ) he could not wait for him and Donald to get to work on the problems.  He said maintaining a huge margin in the Congress and retaining the Senate was done entirely by Trump.  This has been spouted by others also and indeed it is true.  Think what the margins would have been had they been all in in the first place.  Right now the Republicans are stronger all over the board than at any time since the 1920s are in place to make heads spin with what can be accomplished. 

No hell would freeze first.    With this kind of year maybe it will

Looking at the post-election reactions of the establishment such as these, I really have to think all the disdain for him during the campaign was out of the belief that he had zero chance of succeeding against a career politician and insider, in addition to the fact that he was a political outsider who was completely bucking tradition and running against everything they represent. Both sides completely misread public sentiment. Let's hope they get even a fraction of the things accomplished that they're now saying they will.

[sleepngbear]

Hoover easily won the Republican nomination, despite having no elected-office experience. He enjoyed  majority in both the House and Senate. Not many "checks and balances".
Started serving in 1929...Hmm, what else happened in that year?

I love how you liberals go back 87 years to compare today events with. This is not the same country politically as it was 87 years ago. I know they say history will repeat itself. but comparing todays politics to the ones 87 years ago is just crazy. You must be talking about the stock market crash. History has already repeated itself in 2008 under Obama. 

the financial crisis and stock market crash occurred in October 2008. Obama was elected in November. He didn't become president until January 2009. But don't let he facts get in the way of your narrative. 

I don't think you really want to open that can of worms. The seeds of the economy crash were planted under Clinton. W's sin was doing nothing about it. The supposed 'recovery' under Obama was -- and still is -- mostly fabrication and statistical manipulation.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Hoover easily won the Republican nomination, despite having no elected-office experience. He enjoyed  majority in both the House and Senate. Not many "checks and balances".
Started serving in 1929...Hmm, what else happened in that year?

I love how you liberals go back 87 years to compare today events with. This is not the same country politically as it was 87 years ago. I know they say history will repeat itself. but comparing todays politics to the ones 87 years ago is just crazy. You must be talking about the stock market crash. History has already repeated itself in 2008 under Obama. 

the financial crisis and stock market crash occurred in October 2008. Obama was elected in November. He didn't become president until January 2009. But don't let he facts get in the way of your narrative. 

I don't think you really want to open that can of worms. The seeds of the economy crash were planted under Clinton. W's sin was doing nothing about it. The supposed 'recovery' under Obama was -- and still is -- mostly fabrication and statistical manipulation.

I opened no can. An inaccurate statement was made by an evidently clueless poster. Just putting a couple facts out there. 

[Gavin_Sons]

Hoover easily won the Republican nomination, despite having no elected-office experience. He enjoyed  majority in both the House and Senate. Not many "checks and balances".
Started serving in 1929...Hmm, what else happened in that year?

I love how you liberals go back 87 years to compare today events with. This is not the same country politically as it was 87 years ago. I know they say history will repeat itself. but comparing todays politics to the ones 87 years ago is just crazy. You must be talking about the stock market crash. History has already repeated itself in 2008 under Obama. 

the financial crisis and stock market crash occurred in October 2008. Obama was elected in November. He didn't become president until January 2009. But don't let he facts get in the way of your narrative. 

I don't think you really want to open that can of worms. The seeds of the economy crash were planted under Clinton. W's sin was doing nothing about it. The supposed 'recovery' under Obama was -- and still is -- mostly fabrication and statistical manipulation.

I opened no can. An inaccurate statement was made by an evidently clueless poster. Just putting a couple facts out there. 

I was just pretending to know things like you. 
yes i did make an inaccurate statement, that was my bad. I was no Bush fan either.

[Willow]

I did not vote in the poll.  It's too far fetched.

Twenty-nine of the fifty-one electoral units are bound by law to vote for the one they were elected to vote for. A fair portion of the ones who can cast an "unfaithful elector" vote are already committed to Hillary Clinton.  That leaves a requirement that out of a very small subset we would have to have forty-two Republican electors decide to vote for Hillary Clinton to reverse the election.

Past history has had one or two that cast a vote contrary to their commitment; never very many and never reversing an election.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Hoover easily won the Republican nomination, despite having no elected-office experience. He enjoyed  majority in both the House and Senate. Not many "checks and balances".
Started serving in 1929...Hmm, what else happened in that year?

I love how you liberals go back 87 years to compare today events with. This is not the same country politically as it was 87 years ago. I know they say history will repeat itself. but comparing todays politics to the ones 87 years ago is just crazy. You must be talking about the stock market crash. History has already repeated itself in 2008 under Obama. 

the financial crisis and stock market crash occurred in October 2008. Obama was elected in November. He didn't become president until January 2009. But don't let he facts get in the way of your narrative. 

I don't think you really want to open that can of worms. The seeds of the economy crash were planted under Clinton. W's sin was doing nothing about it. The supposed 'recovery' under Obama was -- and still is -- mostly fabrication and statistical manipulation.

I opened no can. An inaccurate statement was made by an evidently clueless poster. Just putting a couple facts out there. 

I was just pretending to know things like you. 
yes i did make an inaccurate statement, that was my bad. I was no Bush fan either.

Pretend away. I doubt it will change either you or me. 

[Gavin_Sons]

Hoover easily won the Republican nomination, despite having no elected-office experience. He enjoyed  majority in both the House and Senate. Not many "checks and balances".
Started serving in 1929...Hmm, what else happened in that year?

I love how you liberals go back 87 years to compare today events with. This is not the same country politically as it was 87 years ago. I know they say history will repeat itself. but comparing todays politics to the ones 87 years ago is just crazy. You must be talking about the stock market crash. History has already repeated itself in 2008 under Obama. 

the financial crisis and stock market crash occurred in October 2008. Obama was elected in November. He didn't become president until January 2009. But don't let he facts get in the way of your narrative. 

I don't think you really want to open that can of worms. The seeds of the economy crash were planted under Clinton. W's sin was doing nothing about it. The supposed 'recovery' under Obama was -- and still is -- mostly fabrication and statistical manipulation.

I opened no can. An inaccurate statement was made by an evidently clueless poster. Just putting a couple facts out there. 

I was just pretending to know things like you. 
yes i did make an inaccurate statement, that was my bad. I was no Bush fan either.

Pretend away. I doubt it will change either you or me. 

this is true, wishful thinking though.

[John Schmidt]

As for the electoral college, I seriously doubt that's going to change in our lifetime. The reasons for its use and application have already been mentioned so I won't expand on it. If someone attempts to throw a curve into the process, it will create a Constitutional mess and I don't think it would fly.

Re. the "crash" which resulted mostly from the banking/mortgage industry, if you recall GW tried something like 17 times to get the looseness in that system reigned in. But during a time when the Senate was under the democratic control, nothing was even opened for discussion. There were over 300 bills sent to the senate, many of them were of solid content, and Reid refused to even bring them up for discussion. Among those were what GW tried to do to pull in the mortgage debacle, they simply wouldn't address it because it was two of their own lamebrains that were responsible for it. Granted, GW joined a list of 42 previous POTUS that weren't perfect, many less so than he, and was followed by a demonstrated arrogant inexperienced narcissist. Depending on one's political bent, the opposing party in power seems to always be at fault.....a rather foolish position in/of itself unless facts have shown it to be true. Such is the case of #44; debt increased higher than all previous POTUS combined, food stamp recipients increased by the millions, 51% lower home ownership during the last 8 yrs., higher TRUE unemployment...not the 4.9%, it goes on and on. Healthcare, which was forced down the necks of the citizens from an admin. claiming to be the most open in history, yet refused to listen. The costs and effectiveness of the UN-ACA turned out to be exactly what was predicted; an unsustainable debacle. The only people that can afford it are either the poor with thousands in subsidies, or the rich who can openly afford it at any cost. For those of us in the middle which I would guess are the majority of this club, it's out of reach re. cost and offers less on top of it. And to top it off, there's still over 30mil. without healthcare, many because they can't afford it and many that simply don't need or want it. When I recall my and my wife's own health situation, we didn't have need of anything until in our early 60's, but it was necessary for the kids. Even then it was quite limited so I can easily understand why the younger set finds it ridiculous to pay for something they most likely won't have need of.

As for blaming the prior administration, the only one that ever came to power and had nobody to blame was G. Washington. None are perfect, none have ever served without making poor decisions, many have made those decisions based on faulty information from trusted staff. How the results of those decisions are handled shows a person's real character and wisdom.

Indeed, the next four years are going to be interesting and I hope we can all benefit from it.

[Psychotic Bovine]

While we are discussing the popular vote and such, I thought I would post this interesting tidbit for our Californians.  Prop 8 in California was voted overwhelmingly by the people of that state.
7,001,084 voted yes; 6,401,482 voted no.

Yes, a greater number of people voted to pass that law in one state versus the difference in the popular vote for Hillary over Trump in the entire country.
Of course, the law was thrown out by a judge in California.

Should it have stood because the majority of Californians voted it in? 

[Gavin_Sons]

While we are discussing the popular vote and such, I thought I would post this interesting tidbit for our Californians.  Prop 8 in California was voted overwhelmingly by the people of that state.
7,001,084 voted yes; 6,401,482 voted no.

Yes, a greater number of people voted to pass that law in one state versus the difference in the popular vote for Hillary over Trump in the entire country.
Of course, the law was thrown out by a judge in California.

Should it have stood because the majority of Californians voted it in? 

yes