Hollywood celebs ask electors to not vote for Trump

[Kazukian]

Their support didn't get Hillary elected, now this, what's next?

"Hollywood celebs produce YouTube video asking for civil war"

 

[Commodus]

Their support didn't get Hillary elected, now this, what's next?

"Hollywood celebs produce YouTube video asking for civil war"

While I believe their argument is mostly valid, this does amount to tilting at windmills. Something tells me that an Electoral College member isn't thinking "well, I was going to rubber-stamp Trump, but now that Martin Sheen and Moby have urged me to vote otherwise..."

There are hints that the College may not just vote the usual way this time around, but the influence likely wouldn't come from here.

 

[Kazukian]

While I believe their argument is mostly valid, this does amount to tilting at windmills. Something tells me that an Electoral College member isn't thinking "well, I was going to rubber-stamp Trump, but now that Martin Sheen and Moby have urged me to vote otherwise..."

There are hints that the College may not just vote the usual way this time around, but the influence likely wouldn't come from here.

We'll know soon enough

 

[IronWing]

They'd do it for Randolph Scott!

 

[superstition]

what's next?

"Hollywood celebs produce YouTube video asking for civil war"

So, the American masses would go to war with each other if the Electoral College were to behave according to the wishes of the founders?

I guess Scalia was wrong. The founders must have been pretty stupid guys or the Constitution is indeed a living document.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I think the massive wave of harassment and death threats against the Electors is more alarming then Hollywood b-lists.
http://nypost.com/2016/12/14/electors-are-being-harassed-threatened-in-bid-to-stop-trump/

 

[fskimospy]

So, the American masses would go to war with each other if the Electoral College were to behave according to the wishes of the founders?

I guess Scalia was wrong. The founders must have been pretty stupid guys.

I think you would find that conservatives' affinity for the electoral college goes exactly as far as it getting them the results they want and not a step further. Doc Savage Fan said something to that effect the other day when he complained that if electors in a state that voted for Trump didn't vote for him in the electoral college that this would somehow disenfranchise them. He didn't seem to have any awareness that the electoral college already doesn't respect the will of the voters, as shown by the fact that the person with the largest popular vote loss by a winner in US history is the president-elect.

So basically it's: 'the electoral college doesn't give the presidency to the person with the most votes? Those are the rules, so stop whining about them.' followed by: 'wait, the rules say the electors can pick whoever they want and ignore the popular vote? THAT'S SO UNFAIR!'

 

[bshole]

I think you would find that conservatives' affinity for the electoral college goes exactly as far as it getting them the results they want and not a step further. Doc Savage Fan said something to that effect the other day when he complained that if electors in a state that voted for Trump didn't vote for him in the electoral college that this would somehow disenfranchise them. He didn't seem to have any awareness that the electoral college already doesn't respect the will of the voters, as shown by the fact that the person with the largest popular vote loss by a winner in US history is the president-elect.

So basically it's: 'the electoral college doesn't give the presidency to the person with the most votes? Those are the rules, so stop whining about them.' followed by: 'wait, the rules say the electors can pick whoever they want and ignore the popular vote? THAT'S SO UNFAIR!'

A logically perfect response. Well done.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

A logically perfect response. Well done.

Do you also support the death threats to the electors? How about bribery attempts? Free legal aid?

 

[feralkid]

Do you also support the death threats to the electors? How about bribery attempts? Free legal aid?

STFU, Donnie.

 

[bshole]

Do you also support the death threats to the electors? How about bribery attempts? Free legal aid?

I do not support death threats to electors. People making such threats should be prosecuted.

I do not support bribery attempts. People attempting to bribe should be investigated and charged if necessary.

Do I support free legal aid? I have no idea where you are going with this. Free legal aid for whom and for what purpose? If a lawyer is going to give away his expertise for free, who I am to object or care.

What does any of this have to do with me liking Eski's post? I do not get the connection.

 

[Pens1566]

Do you also support the death threats to the electors? How about bribery attempts? Free legal aid?

Holy "jump to conclusions mat", Batman.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I think you would find that conservatives' affinity for the electoral college goes exactly as far as it getting them the results they want and not a step further. Doc Savage Fan said something to that effect the other day when he complained that if electors in a state that voted for Trump didn't vote for him in the electoral college that this would somehow disenfranchise them. He didn't seem to have any awareness that the electoral college already doesn't respect the will of the voters, as shown by the fact that the person with the largest popular vote loss by a winner in US history is the president-elect.

So basically it's: 'the electoral college doesn't give the presidency to the person with the most votes? Those are the rules, so stop whining about them.' followed by: 'wait, the rules say the electors can pick whoever they want and ignore the popular vote? THAT'S SO UNFAIR!'

I think you would find that liberal's disdain for the electoral college goes exactly as far as it getting them the results they want and not a step further. Liberals too numerous to count are bemoaning how the electoral college disfrenchises high population blue states and ignores the will of the popular vote, and is therefore in need of immediate reform. They are ignorant to the fact that the whole purpose of the electoral college is to serve as a balance against the risks inherent to majority rule.

So basically it's: 'the electoral college doesn't give the presidency to the person with the most votes? THAT IS SO UNFAIR. REFORM!!!

Followed by: 'wait, the rules say the electors can pick whoever they want and ignore the popular vote? THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE has an override feature designed specifically to block a candidate like Trump. Let's use it!!! The Founding Fathers were so wise!!!

Your post was very well written by the way. I chose to use it only to demonstrate that there has been ample partisan hypocrisy this election.

 

[fskimospy]

I think you would find that liberal's disdain for the electoral college goes exactly as far as it getting them the results they want and not a step further. Liberals too numerous to count are bemoaning how the electoral college disfrenchises high population blue states and ignores the will of the popular vote, and is therefore in need of immediate reform. They are ignorant to the fact that the whole purpose of the electoral college is to serve as a balance against the risks inherent to majority rule.

Nope, I've been against the electoral college my whole life, regardless of the outcome of elections. Liberals are most certainly not ignorant of the purpose of the electoral college, it's just that its purpose is stupid and was originally primarily to protect slavery. We already have a system heavily biased against majority rule, no reason to take that even further.

So basically it's: 'the electoral college doesn't give the presidency to the person with the most votes? THAT IS SO UNFAIR. REFORM!!!

Followed by: 'wait, the rules say the electors can pick whoever they want and ignore the popular vote? THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE has an override feature designed specifically to block a candidate like Trump. Let's use it!!! The Founding Fathers were so wise!!!

Bad attempt at false equivalence. There is no disconnect between saying 'this system is bad and we should get rid of it, but so long as it exists all the rules count'. This is in marked contrast to conservatives who believe that not respecting the popular vote is a feature immediately up until someone might not respect the popular vote in a way that hurts conservatives. Then it's suddenly unfair.

 

[WackyDan]

I think you would find that conservatives' affinity for the electoral college goes exactly as far as it getting them the results they want and not a step further. Doc Savage Fan said something to that effect the other day when he complained that if electors in a state that voted for Trump didn't vote for him in the electoral college that this would somehow disenfranchise them. He didn't seem to have any awareness that the electoral college already doesn't respect the will of the voters, as shown by the fact that the person with the largest popular vote loss by a winner in US history is the president-elect.

So basically it's: 'the electoral college doesn't give the presidency to the person with the most votes? Those are the rules, so stop whining about them.' followed by: 'wait, the rules say the electors can pick whoever they want and ignore the popular vote? THAT'S SO UNFAIR!'

Unfair? No... But perfectly normal to vote the way the state the elector represents voted... The will of the people of that state and all. I don't think there will be a mass defection of electors to change anything. I still find it amusing that those still screaming about the popular vote still don't understand that we are not a true democracy and they do not bother to even educate themselves on it.

That said, here is a good take on the effort to have the electoral college members vote the other way - and written by an outlet that didn't want Hillary and couldn't stand Trump. http://reason.com/blog/2016/12/14/hamilton-electors-electoral-college

 

[baydude]

Because rich and famous celebs really represent the average citizen voters right?

 

[fskimospy]

Unfair? No... But perfectly normal to vote the way the state the elector represents voted... The will of the people of that state and all.

Right, so the popular vote should be respected so long as it stays within state lines, haha. Very convenient.

I don't think there will be a mass defection of electors to change anything.

I agree!

I still find it amusing that those still screaming about the popular vote still don't understand that we are not a true democracy and they do not bother to even educate themselves on it.

I think you might want to learn a bit more about this before calling anyone uneducated as what you said is a frequent misconception. I imagine by 'true' democracy you mean 'pure' democracy where majority rules on everything, because a constitutional republic like ours is absolutely a true democracy. All that a republic means though is that we elect representatives to govern for us instead of everyone voting on every issue like in a pure democracy. There is absolutely zero in conflict between wanting the popular vote to be the deciding factor in how we elect those representatives and not being a 'pure' democracy.

That said, here is a good take on the effort to have the electoral college members vote the other way - and written by an outlet that didn't want Hillary and couldn't stand Trump. http://reason.com/blog/2016/12/14/hamilton-electors-electoral-college

This is a terribly stupid take on it. Not only can electors vote any way they want, it is very likely unconstitutional for it to be any other way. Saying that electors taking an action that the Constitution protects is somehow subverting the Constitution is bizarro-world logic.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Their support didn't get Hillary elected, now this, what's next?

"Hollywood celebs produce YouTube video asking for civil war"

well there's nobody in the video as big as scott baio or ted nugent, so there won't be any traction from this, we need a-listers like chachi and nuge!

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Because rich and famous celebs really represent the average citizen voters right?

just like drumpf does, right?

 

[Kazukian]

Right, so the popular vote should be respected so long as it stays within state lines, haha. Very convenient.



I agree!



I think you might want to learn a bit more about this before calling anyone uneducated as what you said is a frequent misconception. I imagine by 'true' democracy you mean 'pure' democracy where majority rules on everything, because a constitutional republic like ours is absolutely a true democracy. All that a republic means though is that we elect representatives to govern for us instead of everyone voting on every issue like in a pure democracy. There is absolutely zero in conflict between wanting the popular vote to be the deciding factor in how we elect those representatives and not being a 'pure' democracy.



This is a terribly stupid take on it. Not only can electors vote any way they want, it is very likely unconstitutional for it to be any other way. Saying that electors taking an action that the Constitution protects is somehow subverting the Constitution is bizarro-world logic.

Not in my state, they're obligated to vote according to the popular vote in the state.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I think the massive wave of harassment and death threats against the Electors is more alarming then Hollywood b-lists.
http://nypost.com/2016/12/14/electors-are-being-harassed-threatened-in-bid-to-stop-trump/

I saw this coming from a mile away. Lots of crazies in this world...one would have to be a complete moron to risk their personal safety over this imo.

 

[Pens1566]

Electors voting how they see fit is allowed. Some states do have laws requiring electors to follow through with the state's popular vote winner, but the penalty is only a fine I believe. There is also a question as to whether that penalty would even be constitutional.

So, perfectly allowed for and also the intention. Likely? No.

 

[fskimospy]

Not in my state, they're obligated to vote according to the popular vote in the state.

Nope. Your state may claim that they are obligated to vote according to the popular vote but that law is likely unconstitutional and probably could not be enforced.

 

[Kazukian]

Nope. Your state may claim that they are obligated to vote according to the popular vote but that law is likely unconstitutional and probably could not be enforced.

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/12/13/judge-says-colorado-electors-cant-switch-votes/

 

[fskimospy]

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/12/13/judge-says-colorado-electors-cant-switch-votes/

SCOTUS is likely to disagree:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

The ruling only held that requiring a pledge, not a vote, was constitutional and Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Douglas, wrote in his dissent, "no one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated what is implicit in its text – that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices."[8] More recent legal scholars believe "a state law that would thwart a federal elector’s discretion at an extraordinary time when it reasonably must be exercised would clearly violate Article II and the Twelfth Amendment."[9]