Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
OK, all this talk casting doubt on the possibility of faithless electors being able to make a truly positive impact on this election (especially this post
) has made me confused. Can someone please provide a comprehensively concise explanation to those like me who aren't familiar with all of the inner workings of the Electoral College in particular and the US political system in general?
edited 6th Dec '16 2:00:21 AM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.Basically, the popular election doesn't elect the president, the electoral college does. Each state gets a certain number of electors, which isn't proportionate, and the electors vote for the president. Commonly, electors vote according to how their state went in the popular vote (state goes Republican, electors vote Republican). A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win.
The current push for the electors to go 'faithless', i.e. vote against what their state voted, is intended to bring Trump down below the 270 votes he'd need to become President. The Presidency would then be decided by... I think the House, which is the lower chamber of our Congress. Of course, the Republicans control the House, but if enough electors go faithless that the vote goes to Congress, the Republicans may see it as their last chance to unhitch themselves from wherever Trump will drag them for the next four years. If that's the case, the House may vote for Kasich, who is a more moderate Republican with actual, you know, policies.
It's been fun.That's a good start, but doesn't actually address the main point of Viper Magnum 357's post
, about the GOP countering anti-Trump faithless electors with their own faithless electors (which doesn't make sense to me at all).
Also, how does one become an elector? And the way I see electors being described here, it sounds like each party's state branches picks their own electors, and whichever party wins the state, it will be the electors chosen by that party's state branch that get sent to the Electoral College. Is that right?
edited 6th Dec '16 2:33:32 AM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.@Julian
Granted, when I said "most pragmatic" it wasn't by much, but AFAIK Ivanka hasn't been stupid enough to get caught attending white supremacist rallies like her siblings.
As far as I know there's no consistent manner of choosing Electoral Voters. In one case they're a 19 year old.
edited 6th Dec '16 2:53:30 AM by AlleyOop
![]()
No one actually knows how each elector is chosen. The assumption, until this year, was that they were bureaucrats invested with this additional responsibility. This year, however, shows that some are painfully average people, or worse — no better or worse than any citizen, which makes it pretty alarming that they're given the power to override the popular vote.
@Julian Lapostat: Let's not paparazzi this. Digging out shit that children did over a decade ago isn't really helpful for anyone.
Biden didn't officially declare anything, just said he wasn't closing any doors. Also, I'd like to point out that people in this very thread were predicting Clinton would run this time last election, and she was kind of retired at that point.
Seems like you can't really stop people from speculating literally right after the whole thing is done.
edited 6th Dec '16 6:24:06 AM by AceofSpades
@Marq: the point I was making is that there is no federal statute, just an unenforced court ruling that says the electors have to vote the way their state does. There are a bunch of state laws that do so, but that is more in the realm of fines; keeping the two party system intact and preventing blowback are the primary concerns that keep the electorate from voting faithless. An electorate that went faithless would risk destroying that party at the federal level and get them swept out of office. The statutes laid down by the SCOTUS have never been enforced, but potentially could be-another legal tangle. Originally, the power of faithless electors was another check and balance to prevent a tyrant or angry mob sweeping into office, or preventing someone wholly unqualified like a kleptocrat from the same. That is, exactly the situation we have.
The point I made in my last post is that if the Democrats break that detente first, the Republicans would be able to follow suite with minimal criticism-and they have enough of a majority that all of them going faithless would allow them to roll over the Democrats and moral objectors. The question is how many would use that opportunity to get rid of Trump and put in a GOP mouthpiece less likely to start a war.
So it will cost NYC $35 million to protect Trump until the inaguation
Now consider that Trump wants visit NYC on the weekends while his family still stays in New York
One thing is for sure: if enough electors go faithless to deny Trump the election, Hillary Clinton will not be the person they pick for President.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Torches and Pitchforks...I'm calling it.
At the very least, i expect Trump Tower will be getting some fresh "decorations" in the future.
edited 6th Dec '16 8:20:01 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Except it isn't Democratic Electoral Voters threatening to break ranks... It is Republican Electoral Voters in Texas planning to do so because they see Trump as uniquely unqualified and the definition of what the Electoral College was designed to prevent, which is why they are voting for another Republican than Trump. The Democratic Electoral Voters are supposed to vote for Hillary Clinton and she is just like any other candidate, so the Electoral College have no worries about her in office.
edited 6th Dec '16 8:27:00 AM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food Badly
At least two Democratic electors said, prior to the election, that they would not cast their ballots for her even if she won. It's not just on the Republican side.
It's one Elector who is trying to get people to vote with him and is not guaranteed success. Let's not make that bigger than it currently is.
In any case I would think that this incident proves that the Electoral College, given how we've come to expect it to work, is literally incapable of carrying out one of its major intended functions without incurring a whole lot of wrath in general. I just hope that people keep remembering this and start hounding on the point of abolishing the EC.
I like to think they're kind of eating crow now and voting for her anyway in this clusterfuck.
edited 6th Dec '16 8:30:06 AM by AceofSpades
If the Electoral College was originally intended to be a bulwark against a truly horrible candidate winning the popular vote, it's abjectly failed at that job, especially as the candidate who did win the popular vote did not win the election.
Rather, the EC system has done its actual purpose: handed political control over the country to rural counties because Jefferson thought farmers were Closer to Earth and thus more sensible. Hah.
The bigger problem: using factual evidence to find solutions to problems that actually work has become "elitist". We are doomed if we don't find some way to reverse that.
edited 6th Dec '16 8:50:03 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"On the matter of secession:
- This should only be an option when it's clear that things are irrevocably going to shit.
- That being said if this is going to be more than verbal internet masturbation or a bloody failure groundwork needs to be done with
- Other western states, particularly the blue and blue-purple ones like Oregon, Washington and Nevada. Maybe New Mexico and Colorado too.
- Mexico and Canada who will probably be deeply pissed at the US by this point by things like the abrogation of NAFTA and forced deportations (Two necessary steps to things going completely to shit).
- The Northeastern blue states. Hell, if things are going to get that bad why shouldn't we break off too?
edited 6th Dec '16 8:49:56 AM by tricksterson
Trump delenda estI think the energy and thought behind planning secession should go behind getting the 2018 Midterm Elections, then the 2020 Elections.
If you want to protest, tax protest is a more practical option
. It's got a long history, positive and negative
.
![]()
![]()
Can Minnesota get in on it? I mean, we're a mostly blue state, right? We're accepting, we're diverse, we're democratic, right? We must have something we can contribute. (Maybe the run-off from all of that snow from our Minnesota winters? Getting so much water from Oregon must be awfully costly...)
edited 6th Dec '16 9:21:25 AM by kkhohoho
At this point it's just a thought experiment and hopefully will remain so but sure, although the Great Lakes States, being, except for Indiana, more purple than either blue or red might want to go their own way
There is btw, a long buried thread on this. Might want to redirect.
edited 6th Dec '16 9:28:11 AM by tricksterson
Trump delenda estSo the optimist in me is wondering if this is really the Reagan problem all over again or instead if this is the last gasp for air from a dying breed. The baby boomers will still vote, but they may not be next time when the young generation begin their 30s and start voting much much more. They got gay marriage, if Pence's minions try to take that away there will undoubtedly be a public backlash,maybe enough so next time they'll go and vote.

It's darkly hilarious that she honestly doesn't seem to think there was anything wrong with what she did.
Disgusted, but not surprised