• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Where does the Electoral College lead?

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,665
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Heard an Electoral College delegate interviewed by Fox News in a diner in a Florida. He said he'd received 2,000 contacts-emails-physical threats-lawsuit threats to cast his vote for Hillary Clinton. They argued she'd won the popular vote, so the EC was bound to vote for her. He said...

"The Electoral College is a pathway to the presidency. Not a pathway to the popular vote."

Yes!

Thoughts?
 
Agreed. These are the rules of the game established WAY before each game starts. So to try to get others, by force and duress, to play it in a different manner so the candidate that lost, but that you want, to win... well, sorry folks, not how the game is played. You cannot take YOUR ball and go home either.

Its OUR ball, all of ours together.
 
The electoral college was meant to save the republic from a person who is extremely unfit for the office of the presidency, and has somehow won the election. Now is the time for the EC to fulfill it's duty and elect someone other than Trump. He is a danger to the nation and the world.
 

In four years, once we all see that this guy is more or less the same...not even AS dynamic as past presidents, will you eat those words?


We already HAVE a system to protect this nation from dangerous over reach by one person. Congress and senate.
 
Popular vote is 2 wolves and 1 sheep taking a vote on what to eat for dinner.

I refuse to be governed according to the will of people that represent a MINORITY of land mass. People in the sticks have a right to their own voice, and the EC ensures that theirs can't get shouted down by the huddled mobs that are urban areas.
 

Who makes that decision, YourStar?

Do you realize how dangerous it is to change the results of a legal election? Set aside that HC won the popular vote because that's not the argument. The argument is whether these 500+ people have the right to subvert a national election and decide on their own who ought to be POTUS.

Should they be able to pick HC? Or Donald Duck maybe?
 

It is unfortunate that a threat is made against members of the EC. If they can find these persons, they should be prosecuted.

We need a thorough and deep and lasting national debate on the EC and we need to get rid of it. The mechanism from the 1700's permits a small group of persons of counter the will of the American people and places a deep and ugly stain of illegitimacy upon the new President Trump when his opponent garnered more than 2.5 million more votes than he did.
 
MaggieD said:
The argument is whether these 500+ people have the right to subvert a national election and decide on their own who ought to be POTUS.
Click to expand...

No more ludicrous than having 270 people decide who should be president.
 

2.5 million votes, all from, what, 2 states? And as a percentage, is....what? .025 percent of Americans?



Define illegitimate?
 
haymarket said:
It is unfortunate that a threat is made against members of the EC. If they can find these persons, they should be prosecuted.
Click to expand...

I'd have to see some evidence that this guy, or any EC delegate got 2,000 'threats'. This sounds like just another Fox news lie and propaganda story.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
I'd have to see some evidence that this guy, or any EC delegate got 2,000 'threats'. This sounds like just another Fox news lie and propaganda story.
Click to expand...

Lololo. The guy is a delegate. It was a live interview. If it is a lie, it doesn't belong to Fox News. And what is propaganda about his experience, even if you DON'T believe it?

Edit...while we're about it, how about posting some of those other lies from Fox News? Or can't you stand knowing a major media outlet was more fair than the other junk cable news stations?
 
MaggieD said:
If it is a lie, it doesn't belong to Fox News.
Click to expand...

LOL.. It's always good to start the day off with a laugh. Did Fox vet this guy? My guess is the purposedly looked for a delegate who would lie about 'threats'. Yes I know, In the conservative world only ABC, CBS, CNN etc lie. Every day anytime a Republican screws up cons blame the screw-up on the 'liberal media'. And Con look at Fox as the shining light of truth. But in the 'real world', they all lie. And Fox is probably the worse.

Have a Nice day.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/pants-on-fire-analysis-shows-60-of-fox-news-facts-are-really-lies/205563/

MSNBC, Fox, CNN move the needle on our Truth-O-Meter scorecards | PunditFact
 

There is a lot of hate out there right now. I would have thought the present President would be worried about threats towards the delegates, though. Isn't he a constitutional lawyer? He must understand how dangerous this is.
 

Well it's doing that. The problem is that the electorate chose candidates that are exactly what the EC is supposed to prevent. Neither should be President every honest citizen knows it.
 

Punditfact right. Politifact right.

From your link...


Your critical thinking skills rock.

I don't want these goofies doing my thinking for me. POST FOX LIES.
 
The problem here is that there are some snot nosed, whiney assed liberals still trying to change the rules after the game is over. What a bunch of losers. It's one thing to lose an election, and it's another thing completely to lose all respect, dignity and grace. So the EC leads straight to hell in the hands of those threatening the electors.
 

At this point, I see no legitimate way where this election could possibly be overturned.

I wouldn't worry about that happening at all.
 

The problem is, we were given two people who were unfit for the office, so we had to take one or the other.

The EC could overturn it, it certainly is there as a protection against popularism, but it would be unprecedented for them to change the outcome of an election. I don't think the EC has ever changed the outcome of the Presidential election. And with how many EC votes would have to flip in order to put Trump in...I think it's a long shot. Your better bet is to prepare yourself for President Trump for at least 4 years.
 
KevinKohler said:
2.5 million votes, all from, what, 2 states? And as a percentage, is....what? .025 percent of Americans?



Define illegitimate?
Click to expand...

The 2.5 million votes came from all fifty states and from cities and towns and villages all over the land.

The problem with the EC is that it allows two things
1- the LEGAL election of a President
2- the election of a President than may not be the choice of the people as we have seen four times in the last 140 years and twice in just the last five elections.

google the definition and you get

il·le·git·i·mate
ˌiləˈjidəmət/
adjective
1.
not authorized by the law; not in accordance with accepted standards or rules.
"an illegitimate exercise of power by the military"
Click to expand...

So is Trump legal as the next President? Yes.

But does the election of Trump by the EC over the choice of the people violate standards and rules accepted by the American people? Most certainly it does as evidenced by the sacred principle of one person/one vote with no vote having more power than any other. And it violates the principle outlined by Lincoln that we are a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

So YES- Trump will be the legal President and if one wants to accept that as legitimate - one has room to make that case.

And if one wants to see him as illegitimate because the will of the people was thwarted by the EC, there is plenty of foundation in our principles for a person to take that position also.

This is very much a situation dependent upon the eye of the beholder.
 
Last edited:

That's essentially what could happen. The actual people who are in full support of the electoral college won't be complaining if this were to happen.
 
TheGoverness said:
At this point, I see no legitimate way where this election could possibly be overturned.

I wouldn't worry about that happening at all.
Click to expand...

Of course it's not going to be overturned, nor should it be.

But they can keep the GOP base mad and distracted by yet another conspiracy BS that the evil libs are going to overturn it. If Trump lost the story was going to be that the election was rigged, but he won so now they need another 'story'. That story is that it's going to be stolen, it's going to be overturned.

I'm sure that there are people who would love to see it overturned, but that's not going to happen. There's no way for it to happen.
 
MaggieD said:
Do you realize how dangerous it is to change the results of a legal election?
Click to expand...

Are you in actual full support of the electoral college or only certain parts of it? Hillary can still get in if the electors see Donald Trump unfit for president.

If the electors see Donald Trump as the minorities attempt to cause tyranny (if there is any), I assure you it will be stopped since they have the power to do so.
 

I'm in full support of the rules as they now stand. If the people want the rules to change, they have the power to do so. To insinuate that Donald Trump was elected by a small group of people who are advocating tyranny is ridiculous.

We have a practically fool-proof system of checks and balances in our country. I see one loophole in that foolproof system, and that is Executive Orders. Nothing would make me any happier than for Trump OR ANY OTHER PRESIDENT to step far enough over the line to cause there to be a formal clarification of when and if an EO can be used and what it can cover.

Personally? I though President Obama had taken that step, but apparently not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…