Hollywood celebs ask electors to not vote for Trump

[jammix]

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

"Hollywood celebs produce YouTube video asking for civil war"

So Democrats believe 538 individuals should decide the election for 320,000,000 people?? Why are they still called Democrats??
i want to thank these people for exposing themselves and the mental illness they have which I and others have talked about for years.

 

[nickqt]

So Democrats believe 538 individuals should decide the election for 320,000,000 people?? Why are they still called Democrats??
i want to thank these people for exposing themselves and the mental illness they have which I and others have talked about for years.

538 electors are ALREADY going to decide the election for 320,000,000 people.

Your idiocy is hilarious.

Please proceed, imbecile.

 

[MrSquished]

So Democrats believe 538 individuals should decide the election for 320,000,000 people?? Why are they still called Democrats??
i want to thank these people for exposing themselves and the mental illness they have which I and others have talked about for years.

I do not believe the democrats have the votes. But if they did, yes that would be the way.

Unfortunately we won't be so lucky in this election, but you better bet your white ass those electors would be those who would be choosin

 

[Tequila]

How lame. Look I'm as surprised as anyone that Trump won but the amount of whining about the Russians, the riots in Portland, the EC, and now this shit has gone way too far.

 

[fskimospy]

I love how quickly conservatives have gone from 'the founding fathers were wise to create the electoral college' to 'wait, the founding fathers did what?'

 

[hal2kilo]

I love how quickly conservatives have gone from 'the founding fathers were wise to create the electoral college' to 'wait, the founding fathers did what?'

And that the Russians really aren't our enemy is the most alarming.,

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

And that the Russians really aren't our enemy is the most alarming.,

Almost as alarming as the mainstream liberal reaction to Romney calling Russia our number one geopolitical foe only a few short years ago.

 

[glenn1]

Yeah, go for it. A quixotic attempt to subvert electors because you think the President Elect is "unfit" will surely never come back to be used against you once the precedent is set. Heck, maybe next time when it's a Democratic President Elect the GOP can use the tactic to flip the choice to the House and install a POTUS of their party despite losing the election. We know that would never happen, amirite?

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, go for it. A quixotic attempt to subvert electors because you think the President Elect is "unfit" will surely never come back to be used against you once the precedent is set. Heck, maybe next time when it's a Democratic President Elect the GOP can use the tactic to flip the choice to the House and install a POTUS of their party despite losing the election. We know that would never happen, amirite?

Seems like even more of an argument for eliminating the electoral college, no?

People are just trying to cherry pick the parts of the electoral college they like in order to give themselves an advantage. Anyone who argues that liberals should accept the electoral college vote while ignoring the national popular vote has absolutely no leg to stand on to complain about those same electors ignoring the state popular vote. That's what the electoral college is, either accept it's stupid and work to abolish it or resign yourself to the fact that the system is designed to respect your vote only when the electors find it convenient.

 

[boomerang]

Are any of these celebrities the same ones that told us in PSA's that our vote was very important? I wonder because now they're telling us it didn't mean shit.

 

[werepossum]

It's always funny to see the people who think they are endlessly oppressed by any number of conspiracies of the powerful try and call other people special snowflakes.

You guys really don't see the irony, do you?

No, but I do see the idiocy.

 

[glenn1]

Seems like even more of an argument for eliminating the electoral college, no?

People are just trying to cherry pick the parts of the electoral college they like in order to give themselves an advantage. Anyone who argues that liberals should accept the electoral college vote while ignoring the national popular vote has absolutely no leg to stand on to complain about those same electors ignoring the state popular vote. That's what the electoral college is, either accept it's stupid and work to abolish it or resign yourself to the fact that the system is designed to respect your vote only when the electors find it convenient.

The requisite number of states would never ratify the needed Amendment to change it thus your "even more of an argument" is still insufficient. That being the case I personally think your better move is to ponder the strategic and long-term significance of what is being proposes in light of the near certainty that the EC will never go away. And proposing such an extreme measure to be used for such a short term and fleeting (and more importantly doomed) effort to annoy a political foe of the moment who is more of a disagreeable person than a true existential danger to the nation is really, really, truly stupid strategy. Like Argentina invading the Faulklands kinda stupid. The combination of the precedent it sets, the extremely low probability of success, and the complete lack of control over the outcome once it reaches the House (should the effort even be successful) make this extremely foolish. It's like "Rachel Corrie getting run over by an Israeli bulldozer" combination of both pointless and dumb.

 

[fskimospy]

The requisite number of states would never ratify the needed Amendment to change it thus your "even more of an argument" is still insufficient.

Nah.

That being the case I personally think your better move is to ponder the strategic and long-term significance of what is being proposes in light of the near certainty that the EC will never go away. And proposing such an extreme measure to be used for such a short term and fleeting (and more importantly doomed) effort to annoy a political foe of the moment who is more of a disagreeable person than a true existential danger to the nation is really, really, truly stupid strategy. Like Argentina invading the Faulklands kinda stupid. The combination of the precedent it sets, the extremely low probability of success, and the complete lack of control over the outcome once it reaches the House (should the effort even be successful) make this extremely foolish. It's like "Rachel Corrie getting run over by an Israeli bulldozer" combination of both pointless and dumb.

Your entire premise is that there is both a near certainty that the EC will never go away (unfounded assumption) and that Republicans are constrained by governing norms (they have abundantly shown they are not).

 

[qliveur]

LOL, comments are closed and likes/disabled.

Probably because their previous fake-teary-eyed, self-righteous, guilt-tripping emotional appeal got savaged in the comments on top of failing to swing the election.

 

[glenn1]

Nah.

Your entire premise is that there is both a near certainty that the EC will never go away (unfounded assumption) and that Republicans are constrained by governing norms (they have abundantly shown they are not).

The reason for the assumption that EC won't go away is that 3/4 of states would never ratify the Amendment needed to remove it. The "Electoral Compact" will be revealed as a fraud and implode the first time it would require the states to vote for a popular vote winner their states would otherwise be obligated to vote for the Republican. So yes, the EC is never going away.

As for the second part of your statement, I was the one who brought that up in the first place.

Yeah, go for it. A quixotic attempt to subvert electors because you think the President Elect is "unfit" will surely never come back to be used against you once the precedent is set. Heck, maybe next time when it's a Democratic President Elect the GOP can use the tactic to flip the choice to the House and install a POTUS of their party despite losing the election. We know that would never happen, amirite?

 

[fskimospy]

The reason for the assumption that EC won't go away is that 3/4 of states would never ratify the Amendment needed to remove it. The "Electoral Compact" will be revealed as a fraud and implode the first time it would require the states to vote for a popular vote winner their states would otherwise be obligated to vote for the Republican. So yes, the EC is never going away.

No need for a Constitutional amendment and your statement that the interstate compact would immediately go away is based on nothing. Sorry, not interested.

As for the second part of your statement, I was the one who brought that up in the first place.

If the Republicans are unconstrained by governing norms then whether or not Democrats violate governing norms is irrelevant.

 

[Maxima1]

The requisite number of states would never ratify the needed Amendment to change it thus your "even more of an argument" is still insufficient. That being the case I personally think your better move is to ponder the strategic and long-term significance of what is being proposes in light of the near certainty that the EC will never go away. And proposing such an extreme measure to be used for such a short term and fleeting (and more importantly doomed) effort to annoy a political foe of the moment who is more of a disagreeable person than a true existential danger to the nation is really, really, truly stupid strategy. Like Argentina invading the Faulklands kinda stupid. The combination of the precedent it sets, the extremely low probability of success, and the complete lack of control over the outcome once it reaches the House (should the effort even be successful) make this extremely foolish. It's like "Rachel Corrie getting run over by an Israeli bulldozer" combination of both pointless and dumb.

It really isn't stupid. An outcome like that would anger many more people as it would be another case where Democrats get screwed over the EC. Democrats in the future could pack the SC if they want (30-40 years is double or more of average transition of SC during Founders' times and the country is only getting more liberal). Then just use Bush v. Gore decision to argue winner-take-all in EC is unconstitutional, ban partisan gerrymandering, and increase # of House electoral votes (technically, the 435 cap is unconstitutional). This also could be possibly moot if Trump only gets 1 SC pick.

Also, it was suggested by Priebus and others in the Republican party to make PA, MI, and other reliable liberal states award electoral votes based on district level instead of winner-take-all. This would make the EC even more ludicrous because then Democrats can more easily lose even if they win the popular vote by 5%.The state Republicans didn't like the idea, so it hasn't moved to implementation yet. Another reason why it would look ludicrous is because the districts are heavily gerrymandered. People would rightly be outraged if they tried to play that BS.

 

[Maxima1]

The reason for the assumption that EC won't go away is that 3/4 of states would never ratify the Amendment needed to remove it. The "Electoral Compact" will be revealed as a fraud and implode the first time it would require the states to vote for a popular vote winner their states would otherwise be obligated to vote for the Republican. So yes, the EC is never going away.

Democrats would only need the SC to substantially reduce the influence of the EC. You can easily argue that the Bush v. Gore decision makes winner-take-all unconstitutional and then go after partisan gerrymandering (which may be banned next summer if it goes to the court and Kennedy joins). Then argue the House electoral portion would need to be increased, since the cap is unconstitutional As a real example, Bush would have lost if the House was double the size it is now. A smaller House portion of electoral votes helps Republicans because of the urban v. rural divide.

. http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/its-time-to-increase-the-size-of-the-house/

The actual first article — what Congress thought should be the first amendment — dealt with congressional apportionment. It read:


After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.


In simple English, this amendment, properly interpreted (most agree that there’s a scrivener’s error in the final line), would have fixed the maximum size of a congressional district at 50,000 people. It should technically be part of the Constitution: It was ratified by the requisite number of states in June 1792, but for whatever reason, Connecticut’s vote to ratify the article was not recorded and was only later rediscovered. Indeed, there has been (unsuccessful) litigation to force the Archivist of the United States to do so.