theCalamity
Member
That's not changing the rules. It's built into the EC system.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Clinton may win the popular vote by millions
- Thread starter Buba Big Guns
- Start date
- Status
That's not changing the rules. It's built into the EC system.
Maybe it is.
But the aftermath will be worse imo. Far right and nationalists all around the world would use it and their movement will grow exponationaly.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Getting gun-loving racist far-righters to reevaluate the Constitution would be such a hilarious turn of events.
Yes that is true, but you are talking about a group of people spewing bullshit news.
Yes, but it has never been done (and isn't now against the law in some states?).
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Well, they would be in for a rude wake up call is all, then.
They would be in for another rude wake up call if their answer is armed revolution.
This is all hypothetical, though, but when you're faced with an obviously apocalyptic scenario of a Trump presidency, you try to hold one to whatever slivers of hope you can.
Bowing down to bigots because you are afraid of what other bigots will do if they don't get their way is not very good rationale.
The video is wrong, then. Or i misinterpreted the text.
Quoting the news person, "All of Clinton's electors would have to vote for Kasich, and 21 republican electors would have to cross over."
Think of the other half of the voting population, the Trump supporters. You think they'd just take the news of the electoral collage ignoring their votes in stride? And winning the election by the rules but being overthrown just 'cause? I'd really doubt that.
Picture the protests currently. Replace those same protesters with a bunch of middle-American, second-amendment-armed rednecks. Shit could turn bad real quick.
theCalamity
Member
So?
Not that I want this to happen. I'm for getting rid of the EC, though.
In some, but not all. Texas doesn't have a law against faithless electors.
Again, these are the rules.
Not afraid what they will do, no, I am afraid that they will grow as grow until we have a fascist govemernet in a lot of countries.
I don't think they will arm themselves and do a revolution, they will grow and use the democratic system.
Tal Shiar Agent
Banned
The laws against faithlessness have never been tested in court and in all likelihood would be declared unconstitutional.
If the EC chose to elect Hillary through faithless electors, protests will explode all over the nation. Remember that almost half of the people that voted chose Trump and won't take overriding their fairly chosen candidate lightly.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I mean, Democrats have been forced to just "take it in stride" despite seeing their candidate win the popular vote multiple times.
The popular vote is not the decider of presidential elections, whether it's on a county, state, or national level. The electoral college is allowed to vote however they wish even if some states obligate them to vote based on the popular vote of their state.
LegendofJoe
Member
That's why a compromise Republican candidate should be chosen - i.e. Kasich.
Regulus Tera
Romanes Eunt Domus
If you accept the Electoral College as the rule of the land over the popular vote you also have to accept that the Electoral College allows for the existence of faithless electors in the first place.
I won't say it would be a smart thing for it to happen (or that it is even gonna happen) but the ability of electors to ignore the will of the people is also written in the Constitution.
Dark Cloud
Member
Yeah that's fine. Somebody not named Trump.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Seems unlikely that they would grow unless you have data that minorities and young people are increasingly becoming attracted to fascist, racist, "alt-right" factions. Those are the people who will be increasingly represented in elections 4 years out, 8 years out, and beyond.
Both Brexit and Trump happened by and large due to motivated older white people lashing out against their perceived loss of status and control in society.
Tal Shiar Agent
Banned
Fairly chosen is pushing it when voter suppression likely flipped AZ, MI, and NC for Trump.
I don't believe young and minorities will ever be drawn to them. But there is a huge number of grey voters that can flip.
And you can't deny the right wing is growing all around the world (mainly Europe).
chillybright
Banned
If this ever happens how many "not my president" protests do you think would there be?
You know when you say "grow", I feel like it should not be said in terms of their population but in terms of age- we assume these right-wingers will just die off but the scary these a lot of these alt-right people are tech-davy youngsters on the internet. I know myself of people my age (university/college students) who have turned to Trump not necessarily because of any policy, but because of fighting against the PC machine or some nonsense like that. These people will be around for a while, and I feel like they are not rational enough to listen to reason, when I debate with alt-righters, we end up debating in circles and they refuse to listen to facts, choosing to base their arguments on feelings.
The only success in debates that I have had is using their own arguments against them. You say Trump will fight the corrupt? Well he himself has not paid federal taxes on several occasions. You say you are fighting the establishment? Then why Rudy Giuliani, known wall street stooge the favourite for one of his cabinet positions? The sexism, racism, any -ism doesn't work, in fact that type of behaviour I feel only emboldens them....as true as it is in describing them.
User Name Here
Member
Yeah, especially since Hillary winning the Presidency would make Trump's claims about things being rigged against him look accurate.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Why should the "almost half the voting population" that chose Trump be given more weight than the "over half the voting population" that chose Clinton (and Gore back in 2000)?
Either the electoral college decides or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it's back to the popular vote and Trump loses.
You can't use the apparatus as the decider but only in the situation that it votes for you based on a combination of tradition, voter suppression, and blatant gerrymandering to increase importance of white votes on the county level.
Lights and Waves
Member
If Kasich gets it, probably a lot less protests than if they gave it to Hillary.
Pissing off 95% of the voters is probably worse than pissing off 46% of the voters.
For what it is worth, John Weaver (Kasich's campaign manager) is really pushing the Russia link yesterday and today on Twitter. Is he a moderate that cares, is he angling for his boss, or is he angling for a primary run?
If Gerald Ford can get damn near primaried, so can Donald Trump.
I agree.
Frank Underwood
Banned
Democracy is so overrated.
Tal Shiar Agent
Banned
Kasich wouldn't be the worst option. At least he believes climate change is a real threat and in LBGT rights. Though he has a pissed poor record on abortion and is very hawkish. He also wants Keystone XL. He wants a path to legal status for undocumented workers and he is much more lenient on the ACA than Trump (well who the fuck knows with Trump anyway?).
The sore point over this election will last for decades. Hillary was the more popular candidate, expected to win, got millions more votes, and lost over 0.1% of the vote spread across swing states. People are going to feel really rotten as more details about Russia's interference come out. Who knows if the FBI stuff was intentional.
And if Trump gets impeached or resigns, it will just piss off a lot of Hillary's fans even more, because they'll view the election as a load of bullshit that denied them the first woman president.
There are no do-overs. There are no calls for general elections. There are no recall votes. We're stuck with Trump and/or Pence for the next four years.
This is going to end up the second-highest voter turnout election in the last fifty years (or, rather, since the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18, which dramatically lowered the turnout rate). If this election is "void" due to having sub-60% turnout, you'd need to void every election 1972-present except 2008.
Yeah. The electoral college had a point originally. Slaves, while not being able to vote, were counted toward a state's electoral count, making up for the south's high slave populations. That wasn't possible with a direct election. Obviously that isn't an issue today.
Audioboxer
Member
You won't get a do-over but let it be a wakeup call to America, especially the insanely high number of those who don't bother their arse voting.
In terms of the EC, the best bet is reform for the future. You cannot retroactively reform it and demand elections gone by get changed.
This is my opinion. There's no reason several small states should dictate who president is any longer. We should be pushing for maximum voter participation and relying upon the popular vote. Districts should be clear and not all butchered at the state level. It's really so preposterous when one steps back and really examines it that it's surprising it wasn't fixed decades ago.
Fuck Wikileaks.
Fuck Russia.
Fuck the FBI.
Fuck that pervert Anthony Wiener.
Fuck voter suppression.
Fuck people extolling the sanctity of the will of the people and democracy but immediately rejecting the idea of the faithless elector.
Clinton still has the popular vote despite having a mountain of bullshit against her. On top of being incompetent and unproven liars Trump and his kin are simply bad people with no interest in the lives of the people outside of the super rich who told a thrilling lie to people wanting a better life.
In a better world give me Jeb Bush. Give me Kasich. Give me any other established republican who ran [not Ted Cruz***] over Trump and I will at least sleep better at night. In my ideal world I want Clinton.
Fuck Russia.
Fuck the FBI.
Fuck that pervert Anthony Wiener.
Fuck voter suppression.
Fuck people extolling the sanctity of the will of the people and democracy but immediately rejecting the idea of the faithless elector.
Clinton still has the popular vote despite having a mountain of bullshit against her. On top of being incompetent and unproven liars Trump and his kin are simply bad people with no interest in the lives of the people outside of the super rich who told a thrilling lie to people wanting a better life.
In a better world give me Jeb Bush. Give me Kasich. Give me any other established republican who ran [not Ted Cruz***] over Trump and I will at least sleep better at night. In my ideal world I want Clinton.
Neander
Member
Forgot where I read it but in the chance some faithless electors were to vote her in come Dec 13, the chances of her accepting it are slim to none. And Obama would lash out against it. She's just not going to be President.
gutter_trash
Banned
you forgot Bernie Sanders,
his campaign was always on attack mode railing against Clinton's ties repeatedly so much that Trump adopted them to use against Clinton.
Bernie damaged Clinton way more in 2016 than when she lost to Obama in 2008.
They'll sit in their lawn chairs and gripe in front of their city hall. I'm sure there would be legal challenges though. Having said that, the chances of this happening are next to nil anyway.
That's on Clinton
Same as Wikikeaks despite their agenda
People still doing this? Bernie did nothing wrong. Clinton ran a losing campaign. End of story.
Really needs to be copy/pasted every time someone tries to argue that the electoral college is a "fair" system. There are 3 branches of government and right now 2 of them are engineered to reduce the power of those living in cities and the 3rd is completely dependent on the first 2 (when justices are up for assignment that is).
It's complete bullshit that this is still our method in the 21st century. It's long past time that we have a 1 person 1 vote for the Presidency. We'll also probably see an explosion of voter participation once we switch to this system. It's a no brainer.
Yup. Bernies message was she wasn't going to help certain groups because she was status quo. Then she proceeded to run a status quo campaign who's message was that the opponent was unelectable.
As for the electoral college vs popular vote.... liberals gonna have to get over it. Unless suddenly we expect states to vote for giving super populous states like California and New York power over the country, electoral college will always be a go. A president needs to appeal more broadly to people across many states and she clearly did not do that. We deserve the L, and next time dems cannot ignore these sections of the country.
Further, dems also lost downballot. Lost almost everywhere. Dems also need to turn out, think about issues beyond the perfect candidate. In essence they deserve to feel the consequences of continuing to lose downballot. If I had a damn dollar every time I had to argue with some young liberal about why if they loved bernies ideas, Clinton has to be an automatic vote for Supreme Court alone... and was argued back with a typical smug liberal tone of it's their right to do whatever they want with their vote yadda yadda
So take that L. Let's see what happens. Hopefully world doesn't go to shit. If it does, maybe congress has a chance to flip in 2018
Not only is this a delusional analysis of the 2016 race, but it's just as delusional about the 2008 primary. Clinton ran an abhorent borderline racist campaign that framed Obama as unamerican and the "token" black candidate that couldnt win the white vote like she could. It's to Obama's credit that he overcame that and even worked with her as SoS after all that nonsense.
I'm generally in favor of the popular vote, but how would you count the popular votes if states start switching away from first past the post voting? Ranked choice could be counted, assuming it doesn't allow multiple choices at the same rank, but how would you combine approval voting, or score voting into the popular vote?
No.
You can repeat it all you want, but putting it all on Clinton, and only Clinton, is not only wrong it's dangerous because it normalizes her opponent and circumstances, puts no responsibility on the electorate to inform themselves of the consequences of their vote, and discards all possibilities that her primary opponent went too far in damaging her appeal to core progressive voters, which he absolutely did (to which extent is unknown afaik).
Now was Clinton a very flawed candidate and is this outcome partially on her? Absolutely. But this is in no way 100% on Clinton.
If this idea spreads, then we are doomed to repeat this result in spite of changing demographics, because we will be unwilling to affect systematic changes considering that "we just need the right candidate".
What the DNC needs, and fast, is to find a way to identify the hundred of thousands of likely voters leaning left who refused to vote or went to the polls and voted Green or left the presidential vote blank, and do a deep analysis of why, in the states of Oh, Mi, Wis, Fl and Pa at the very least.
Not just "I couldn't get myself to vote for Clinton even if I abhore Trump", but really what happened with Clinton to make them roll the dice with a chance to have Trump get elected?
Did the primary change their view of Clinton? How?
Do they feel they would have voted for another Dem candidate? With what profile?
What aspect of Clinton's perceived image did they find unbearable?
Was the "near certainty" of Clinton getting elected, according to polls, a factor?
How big was the email thing 11 days before the election?
How long before the election did they decide not to vote?
Do they regret not voting?
Etc.
I agree with this. So many things had to go wrong for a racist demagogue to win the presidency. There are dozens of lessons to learn. Everyone that cares about democratic or liberal causes failed by not doing more. Not donating, not campaigning & canvassing, not stomping out "both sides are equally bad" BS from friends, not fighting against insane conspiracy theories during the primaries.
Muppet of a Man
Member
Funny how everybody forgets this when it's convenient for them to do so.
I'm sorry I keep seeing this everywhere as if people are implying that we need to wait for the presidency to start to protest the EC. Isn't right now the best time to start especially off the back of the momentum from last Tuesday? Not saying anything will change this current president-elect, but it's really sad that I keep seeing people say you need to wait it's not going to change anything now. No shit, but starting now 4 years ahead especially given the current circumstance means right now is the best time to start fighting for that change.
Emerson
May contain jokes =>
As far as I can tell, an electoral college system in which every state awards its votes proportionally to each candidate is far superior to either the current system or a pure popular vote system.
The point is that arguing for this now simply opens you up to being accused of being a sore loser and does not give you any higher chance of achieving the change.
The best time to have this push would be in 1-2 years when you could argue based on the general inherent issues of the electoral system and not be as directly tied to one specific result. Doing it now just looks reactionary.
The point is that arguing for this now simply opens you up to being accused of being a sore loser and does not give you any higher chance of achieving the change.
The best time to have this push would be in 1-2 years when you could argue based on the general inherent issues of the electoral system and not be as directly tied to one specific result. Doing it now just looks reactionary.
- Status