Donald Trump could still theoretically not be president because of ‘faithless electors’

[OriZ 3,157]

or small hands or or Orange hair

We had a delivery the other day the card msg read :"don't let that orange cheeto get you down..." mind you it was going to a local news reporter.

We also had one today that requested to add a safety pin to the bow if we have one. Well, we didn't have one, but even if we did it wouldn't happen.

[Merrytooth 5,748]

We had a delivery the other day the card msg read :"don't let that orange cheeto get you down..." mind you it was going to a local news reporter.

We also had one today that requested to add a safety pin to the bow if we have one. Well, we didn't have one, but even if we did it wouldn't happen.

Did You vote for the orange cheeto as well?

Edited November 15, 2016 by Merrytooth

[Anitafeliz 1,133]

Did You vote for the orange cheeto as well?

Jiijiji

[Dakine10 5,452]

We are the laughing stock of the world.

We elected Donald Trump. If the rest of the world wasn't already laughing, it's only because laughing is not a natural reaction to having the bejesus scared out of you. You can't have it both ways on that one.

[javadown2 308]

via The Independent

Not trying to give false hope or anything, but it's theoretically possible. December 12th, here we come.

(The Electoral College is such an odd system when you really sit down and think about it.)

It will not happen, it's already determined and he won by a landslide the electoral college vote....time to face reality and get used to calling him President Trump, besides the US could use a change of pace and not have another crooked and lying politician in office!

[Dakine10 5,452]

It will not happen

Thank you. After 3 pages of unanimity, it was fortuitous that you came along and clarified that.

[javadown2 308]

Thank you. After 3 pages of unanimity, it was fortuitous that you came along and clarified that.

Mic drop

[bcking 3,157]

It will not happen, it's already determined and he won by a landslide the electoral college vote....time to face reality and get used to calling him President Trump, besides the US could use a change of pace and not have another crooked and lying politician in office!

Can't wait to have a crooked and lying businessman, who surrounds himself with "advisors" that are crooked and lying politicians. That seems like far better

For all his talk of "draining the swamp", he has quite a few "swamp things" around him. Or do you somehow think the swamp is only inhabited by Democrats? Both sides are corrupt and yet he has no problem enlisting people like Chris Christie to help him out. He's having a mud bath in the swamp.

[Teddy B 17,251]

In 2004, had Kerry gotten 60,000 more votes in Ohio, he would be president, even though Bush got 3,000,000 more votes than him. It goes both ways and it serves a purpose, to prevent 20 large cities from deciding what happens to the rest of the country. I think the US should never determine elections by popular vote alone. I'm not saying I'm completely opposed to changes, but if anything gets done, I think it should just be so that more states are not winner takes all, maybe be more like Maine. Otherwise, I like the idea of states voting for president and not people when you're talking such a big country. You can't determine an election result based on such narrow margins with the popular vote, where for all you know some intoxicated college kids in an uber liberal large city like LA could tip the results in favor of one or the other.

I agree with changing the "winner take all" format in most states for electoral votes. I think a percentage based distribution of the electoral votes would be much better. If Trump were to get 65% of the popular vote in one state and Hillary took 35% then the electoral votes would be assigned according to the percentage.

Thank you. After 3 pages of unanimity, it was fortuitous that you came along and clarified that.

Hey, I was still on the fence, that post was the deciding factor for me.

[Teddy B 17,251]

Can't wait to have a crooked and lying businessman, who surrounds himself with "advisors" that are crooked and lying politicians. That seems like far better

For all his talk of "draining the swamp", he has quite a few "swamp things" around him. Or do you somehow think the swamp is only inhabited by Democrats? Both sides are corrupt and yet he has no problem enlisting people like Chris Christie to help him out. He's having a mud bath in the swamp.

Not only are they all crooked, but they're all friends as well. Look at how quickly Trump has backed off his promise to investigate and prosecute Hillary over her e-mail scandal. Now according to Trump, the Clinton's are good people and he doesn't want to hurt them. I don't know why a good amount of the voting public does not realize this. The way we get divided over these elections is bizarre, it's also exactly what the elite want us to do. Keeping the people divided assures that they will never get too strong and are easier to control.

[JayJayH 546]

I agree with changing the "winner take all" format in most states for electoral votes. I think a percentage based distribution of the electoral votes would be much better. If Trump were to get 65% of the popular vote in one state and Hillary took 35% then the electoral votes would be assigned according to the percentage.

Hey, I was still on the fence, that post was the deciding factor for me.

I agree. I've seen half my Facebook feed in the past couple of days calling for the abolishment of the electoral college. It's amazing to me how many people just found out about the EC on Tuesday, and then decided they wanted it abolished on Thursday.

The electoral college is in many ways more democratic than "one person, one vote." I would hate to see the 2020 election being spent by both candidates dedicating their entire campaigns to racking up votes in New York, LA, Chicago and Houston while leaving middle America in the ditch. But reform would be good. Proportional distribution like you said would make up for a lot of the shortcomings of both.

[bcking 3,157]

I agree. I've seen half my Facebook feed in the past couple of days calling for the abolishment of the electoral college. It's amazing to me how many people just found out about the EC on Tuesday, and then decided they wanted it abolished on Thursday.

The electoral college is in many ways more democratic than "one person, one vote." I would hate to see the 2020 election being spent by both candidates dedicating their entire campaigns to racking up votes in New York, LA, Chicago and Houston while leaving middle America in the ditch. But reform would be good. Proportional distribution like you said would make up for a lot of the shortcomings of both.

While I would agree that something to protect rural America is important, I wouldn't say that is "more democratic". Democracy is a system of government dedicated by a "whole" population/electorate. It is truly one person, one vote. We have a democratic republic and the electoral college is just one of the ways we bridge ourselves between a democracy and a republic.

Honestly I much prefer the system in the UK where you vote for your representatives and the "leader" of the party that controls the legislature obtains the higher office. I recognize that it gets rid of one of the "checks and balances", but I think it helps avoid situations where the two are completley against each other and nothing happens. We aren't ever going to change our system that drastically though so it isn't worth discussing.

[Teddy B 17,251]

I agree. I've seen half my Facebook feed in the past couple of days calling for the abolishment of the electoral college. It's amazing to me how many people just found out about the EC on Tuesday, and then decided they wanted it abolished on Thursday.

The electoral college is in many ways more democratic than "one person, one vote." I would hate to see the 2020 election being spent by both candidates dedicating their entire campaigns to racking up votes in New York, LA, Chicago and Houston while leaving middle America in the ditch. But reform would be good. Proportional distribution like you said would make up for a lot of the shortcomings of both.

The proportional distribution would eliminate the "my vote doesn't count" mentality as well. Having lived in a solid blue state my whole life, the times I have voted for a republican candidate for president I have felt that my vote was wasted because there was no chance that the republican would win the state of Mass. At least with a proportionate system my vote would go towards the overall percentage of that candidates total of electoral votes in the entire country.

[OriZ 3,157]

The proportional distribution would eliminate the "my vote doesn't count" mentality as well. Having lived in a solid blue state my whole life, the times I have voted for a republican candidate for president I have felt that my vote was wasted because there was no chance that the republican would win the state of Mass. At least with a proportionate system my vote would go towards the overall percentage of that candidates total of electoral votes in the entire country.

And that's exactly it...in VT our vote sure doesn't count either. I like the electoral college, but I'm not opposed to a certain degree of proportional distribution. Obviously, we're not talking per each 1%...

[OriZ 3,157]

While I would agree that something to protect rural America is important, I wouldn't say that is "more democratic". Democracy is a system of government dedicated by a "whole" population/electorate. It is truly one person, one vote. We have a democratic republic and the electoral college is just one of the ways we bridge ourselves between a democracy and a republic.

Honestly I much prefer the system in the UK where you vote for your representatives and the "leader" of the party that controls the legislature obtains the higher office. I recognize that it gets rid of one of the "checks and balances", but I think it helps avoid situations where the two are completley against each other and nothing happens. We aren't ever going to change our system that drastically though so it isn't worth discussing.

What most people don't realize is the US is not, and was never meant to be a democracy in the same way some countries are. It is a constitutional republic. The system wasn't designed in the first place with the thought that whoever wins the most overall votes will surely match the electoral vote, so when that doesn't happen it's not a flaw in the system, it IS the system. It was an ingenious albeit imperfect compromise.

Edited November 15, 2016 by OriZ