|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States42823 Posts
On November 07 2016 15:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:43 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:38 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:27 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:20 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:14 plasmidghost wrote:
[quote]
That's how it should be, you are elected to represent the will of your constituents, not do your own thing That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it. Okay, I'll admit that I don't know how the electoral college members are chosen then, I thought they were chosen by the political parties then voted for whatever the people chose That's pretty much how it works, but "the party is who shows up" and the people (Democratic party of Washington) that showed up didn't even endorse Hillary, we endorsed Bernie (this is after Hillary had "won" the nomination, but before the national convention). On November 07 2016 15:20 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:14 plasmidghost wrote:
[quote]
That's how it should be, you are elected to represent the will of your constituents, not do your own thing That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it. The elector isn't the representative of just the party. The elector is responsible to the people of the state as a whole to carry out their will and if their will at the ballot box is Hillary then the constitution gives him no authority to overrule that. The Supreme Court will slap him down if he tries, as they must to preserve American democracy. You know this has happened before right? Not in a way that sets a precedent. I don't think it can technically swing the election (Republicans in the house could say "Trump got more electoral college votes so we give it to him", but that would just be scapegoating, they would still have full control). The optics of the US forcing a Native American to vote for Hillary against his will would be too damn symbolic. #NoDAPL Still wondering what law/rule would be used to force him to vote for her, and extremely curious what they would threaten him with. EDIT: Doesn't seem like you know how they could do it, just assertively stating that's the way it is without knowing it to be true? They wouldn't threaten him with shit. They would just take away his vote and give it to Hillary. You're not getting this. It's no different than it Queen Elizabeth decided we were going back to absolute monarchy. They'd just abdicate her and find someone who would play the part. Sure, on paper she's allowed to do whatever the fuck she wants but we all know how the fuck the system is meant to work and wouldn't tolerate someone fucking it up because tradition. Seriously, you've lost the plot at this point if you think the election is going to be decided by rogue electoral college voters. They're a tradition that continues to exist because they don't invoke their power in a way that makes it obvious that they're outdated and need to be abolished. The moment they do, they'll be fixed. lol I literally said in the post you quoted I don't think it could be decided by him. So your saying there's some way for them to take away his ability to cast his vote and they can just replace it with the vote they want? The state party, and other dems that have looked into said that wasn't true, which is why I keep asking for you to cite something backing up your opinion. At this point I have to just presume you're talking out of your ass. I don't need to cite shit to explain to you that it wouldn't be allowed in any scenario in which it mattered. I just need to not be a complete fucking moron to know that the Supreme Court would never uphold it. They're traditional roles which continue only because they don't fuck up the working of the system. If they fucked it up they'd be slapped back into place. So basically you're saying that they still won't do anything because it won't change the election (which is what I said already), so you're arguing about what exactly?
You said Trump only needed 269 to win because of your dude deciding that he gets to decide on behalf of the people of Washington. That's what started this. You named that specific instance of Trump getting 269 as a situation in which this would matter because your guy would make him win.
if it's the 269-269 scenario she'll actually only get 268
Now you're trying to insist that you were actually talking about every situation except the one you specifically stated that you were talking about. Go home GH, you're drunk.
|
On November 07 2016 15:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:41 CobaltBlu wrote:
Nobody would care if he is native american. Deciding to invalidate the votes of the citizens you represent is an obnoxious power trip. Again, the people who put him there knew this was a possibility. If the citizens had a problem with it, they shouldn't have elected him.
When exactly did the citizens put him there? I've never once voted for my electors, or even had an opportunity to learn their names. I'm a little unclear where you stand here GH, do you disagree that an elector who (hypothetically) swings the election by voting against what his voters decided is an undemocratic piece of shit who disenfranchises his constituents and shits up our entire political system?
|
On November 07 2016 15:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:43 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:38 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:27 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:20 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it. Okay, I'll admit that I don't know how the electoral college members are chosen then, I thought they were chosen by the political parties then voted for whatever the people chose That's pretty much how it works, but "the party is who shows up" and the people (Democratic party of Washington) that showed up didn't even endorse Hillary, we endorsed Bernie (this is after Hillary had "won" the nomination, but before the national convention). On November 07 2016 15:20 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it. The elector isn't the representative of just the party. The elector is responsible to the people of the state as a whole to carry out their will and if their will at the ballot box is Hillary then the constitution gives him no authority to overrule that. The Supreme Court will slap him down if he tries, as they must to preserve American democracy. You know this has happened before right? Not in a way that sets a precedent. I don't think it can technically swing the election (Republicans in the house could say "Trump got more electoral college votes so we give it to him", but that would just be scapegoating, they would still have full control). The optics of the US forcing a Native American to vote for Hillary against his will would be too damn symbolic. #NoDAPL Still wondering what law/rule would be used to force him to vote for her, and extremely curious what they would threaten him with. EDIT: Doesn't seem like you know how they could do it, just assertively stating that's the way it is without knowing it to be true? They wouldn't threaten him with shit. They would just take away his vote and give it to Hillary. You're not getting this. It's no different than it Queen Elizabeth decided we were going back to absolute monarchy. They'd just abdicate her and find someone who would play the part. Sure, on paper she's allowed to do whatever the fuck she wants but we all know how the fuck the system is meant to work and wouldn't tolerate someone fucking it up because tradition. Seriously, you've lost the plot at this point if you think the election is going to be decided by rogue electoral college voters. They're a tradition that continues to exist because they don't invoke their power in a way that makes it obvious that they're outdated and need to be abolished. The moment they do, they'll be fixed. lol I literally said in the post you quoted I don't think it could be decided by him. So your saying there's some way for them to take away his ability to cast his vote and they can just replace it with the vote they want? The state party, and other dems that have looked into said that wasn't true, which is why I keep asking for you to cite something backing up your opinion. At this point I have to just presume you're talking out of your ass. I don't need to cite shit to explain to you that it wouldn't be allowed in any scenario in which it mattered. I just need to not be a complete fucking moron to know that the Supreme Court would never uphold it. They're traditional roles which continue only because they don't fuck up the working of the system. If they fucked it up they'd be slapped back into place. So basically you're saying that they still won't do anything because it won't change the election (which is what I said already), so you're arguing about what exactly? You said Trump only needed 268 to win because of your dude deciding that he gets to decide on behalf of the people of Washington. That's what started this. You named that specific instance of Trump getting 269 as a situation in which this would matter because your guy would make him win. Now you're trying to insist that you were actually talking about every situation except the one you specifically stated that you were talking about. Go home GH, you're drunk.
lol. I just pointed out that she gets 268, and then later explained that Republicans could use that as a scapegoat, but that it wouldn't be any different than if they got 168-169 as far as process.
I did respond to Nettles post about him winning with 269, but I didn't mean to agree with it (I actually still don't know what he meant). So you simply misunderstood what I was saying. Someone's cranky today.
|
On November 07 2016 15:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:41 CobaltBlu wrote:
Nobody would care if he is native american. Deciding to invalidate the votes of the citizens you represent is an obnoxious power trip. Again, the people who put him there knew this was a possibility. If the citizens had a problem with it, they shouldn't have elected him.
That's because it is mainly a ceremonial role. No one expects a small group of people to get together and attempt to elect someone to invalidate their votes in a general election.
|
On November 07 2016 15:51 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:41 CobaltBlu wrote:
Nobody would care if he is native american. Deciding to invalidate the votes of the citizens you represent is an obnoxious power trip. Again, the people who put him there knew this was a possibility. If the citizens had a problem with it, they shouldn't have elected him. When exactly did the citizens put him there? I've never once voted for my electors, or even had an opportunity to learn their names. I'm a little unclear where you stand here GH, do you disagree that an elector who (hypothetically) swings the election by voting against what his voters decided is an undemocratic piece of shit who disenfranchises his constituents and shits up our entire political system?
Not sure what state you're in, but I voted for him, and fully support his decision, so no (though circumstances matter). If he hadn't told people that he may do this, if people didn't get to choose him, if he was instead voting for Trump, etc... But that's not the case here.
On November 07 2016 15:54 CobaltBlu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:41 CobaltBlu wrote:
Nobody would care if he is native american. Deciding to invalidate the votes of the citizens you represent is an obnoxious power trip. Again, the people who put him there knew this was a possibility. If the citizens had a problem with it, they shouldn't have elected him. That's because it is mainly a ceremonial role. No one expects a small group of people to get together and attempt to elect someone to invalidate their votes in a general election.
He told them, that they didn't believe him is on them. That they just presumed he would do it anyway is a bit of divine justice.
|
On November 07 2016 15:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:43 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:38 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:27 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:20 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it. Okay, I'll admit that I don't know how the electoral college members are chosen then, I thought they were chosen by the political parties then voted for whatever the people chose That's pretty much how it works, but "the party is who shows up" and the people (Democratic party of Washington) that showed up didn't even endorse Hillary, we endorsed Bernie (this is after Hillary had "won" the nomination, but before the national convention). On November 07 2016 15:20 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it. The elector isn't the representative of just the party. The elector is responsible to the people of the state as a whole to carry out their will and if their will at the ballot box is Hillary then the constitution gives him no authority to overrule that. The Supreme Court will slap him down if he tries, as they must to preserve American democracy. You know this has happened before right? Not in a way that sets a precedent. I don't think it can technically swing the election (Republicans in the house could say "Trump got more electoral college votes so we give it to him", but that would just be scapegoating, they would still have full control). The optics of the US forcing a Native American to vote for Hillary against his will would be too damn symbolic. #NoDAPL Still wondering what law/rule would be used to force him to vote for her, and extremely curious what they would threaten him with. EDIT: Doesn't seem like you know how they could do it, just assertively stating that's the way it is without knowing it to be true? They wouldn't threaten him with shit. They would just take away his vote and give it to Hillary. You're not getting this. It's no different than it Queen Elizabeth decided we were going back to absolute monarchy. They'd just abdicate her and find someone who would play the part. Sure, on paper she's allowed to do whatever the fuck she wants but we all know how the fuck the system is meant to work and wouldn't tolerate someone fucking it up because tradition. Seriously, you've lost the plot at this point if you think the election is going to be decided by rogue electoral college voters. They're a tradition that continues to exist because they don't invoke their power in a way that makes it obvious that they're outdated and need to be abolished. The moment they do, they'll be fixed. lol I literally said in the post you quoted I don't think it could be decided by him. So your saying there's some way for them to take away his ability to cast his vote and they can just replace it with the vote they want? The state party, and other dems that have looked into said that wasn't true, which is why I keep asking for you to cite something backing up your opinion. At this point I have to just presume you're talking out of your ass. I don't need to cite shit to explain to you that it wouldn't be allowed in any scenario in which it mattered. I just need to not be a complete fucking moron to know that the Supreme Court would never uphold it. They're traditional roles which continue only because they don't fuck up the working of the system. If they fucked it up they'd be slapped back into place. So basically you're saying that they still won't do anything because it won't change the election (which is what I said already), so you're arguing about what exactly? You said Trump only needed 269 to win because of your dude deciding that he gets to decide on behalf of the people of Washington. That's what started this. You named that specific instance of Trump getting 269 as a situation in which this would matter because your guy would make him win. Now you're trying to insist that you were actually talking about every situation except the one you specifically stated that you were talking about. Go home GH, you're drunk.
To be technically correct, Trump cannot win with 269. The President must be elected as per the 12th Amendment which stipulates that the President must have a majority of the EC votes. Thus, you need 270. If the situation does arise where it is 269-268-1, then the House decides (well, it's a little more complex since it involves a quorum, and 1 vote per state, blah blah blah read 12th Amendment). If this does happen I suspect Trump wins because the GOP controls the House, but regardless I suspect that there would be a new push to change the 12th Amendment (and no the SCOTUS cannot unilaterally do that as much as you think they would/could).
|
Canada8989 Posts
On November 07 2016 15:39 Probe1 wrote:
The electoral college is a terrible outdated institution that only exists because it has not yet fucked up significantly enough to generate the political action to remove it.
It made sense in 1800. Like many other institutions that are no longer with us.
As a non-american the electoral college make for the most fun to follow election. You can realy plan every scenario and only focus on a few states, it is way more enjoyable then a standar universal vote election where you got nothing but national polls to look at.
It is right there with monster trucks in the tradition of fun yet super impractical american creations.
|
On November 07 2016 15:44 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:33 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:20 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:14 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 14:58 KwarK wrote:That's not how the electoral system works. If he does that then the Supreme Court will shit all over him and force him to. The Electoral College is no longer a real representative system, they are not empowered to override the will of the people. In a parliamentary system the MPs are empowered to use their best judgement to decide which government to support and how to represent their voters, in the American presidential system there is no such freedom, they are empowered only directly represent the stated will of the people. That's how it should be, you are elected to represent the will of your constituents, not do your own thing That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it. Okay, I'll admit that I don't know how the electoral college members are chosen then, I thought they were chosen by the political parties then voted for whatever the people chose That's pretty much how it works, but "the party is who shows up" and the people (Democratic party of Washington) that showed up didn't even endorse Hillary, we endorsed Bernie (this is after Hillary had "won" the nomination, but before the national convention). On November 07 2016 15:20 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:14 plasmidghost wrote:On November 07 2016 14:58 KwarK wrote:That's not how the electoral system works. If he does that then the Supreme Court will shit all over him and force him to. The Electoral College is no longer a real representative system, they are not empowered to override the will of the people. In a parliamentary system the MPs are empowered to use their best judgement to decide which government to support and how to represent their voters, in the American presidential system there is no such freedom, they are empowered only directly represent the stated will of the people. That's how it should be, you are elected to represent the will of your constituents, not do your own thing That's just it, he is representing his constituents, the people who put him there support his decision, or they didn't listen to him before they voted for him, in which case, there's a bit of divine justice in it. The elector isn't the representative of just the party. The elector is responsible to the people of the state as a whole to carry out their will and if their will at the ballot box is Hillary then the constitution gives him no authority to overrule that. The Supreme Court will slap him down if he tries, as they must to preserve American democracy. You know this has happened before right? EDIT: So did you have any document you could point at where they would force him to vote for Hillary (great optics btw) or something, or is this just your interpretation of why more wasn't done before? Dude, this is common fucking sense. If the people of Washington vote for Hillary as president and their electoral college representative delivers a Trump presidency in a tie-breaker the Supreme Court is not going to allow that. I know you're completely off the sane-train ever since Bernie endorsed Clinton but at some point you need to come back to earth. The electoral college is a formality, they're allowed to show up drunk and vote for the wrong guy by accident but nobody is going to change the election result because of it. Just so we're clear: 1) The US is not a Democracy, we're a Constitutional Republic 2) The 12th Amendment does not specify a EC elector has to vote for whoever their state voted for on a popular basis 3) Not all States utilize the same EC voting system - Maine and Nebraska utilize district representation for instance 4) The SCOTUS all ready has way too much power and if anything is going to implode our political system it'll be the SCOTUS effectively abolishing the EC and swinging the election themselves (Again, there is no law mandating an elector give their vote to whoever their state voted for on a popular basis)
I've seen Americans say point 1 so many times but it makes no sense whatsoever. The two are not mutually exclusive, they are on different sets altogether. It's like saying I'm not a mammal, I have 2 eyes. Most republics are representative democracies, US included.
|
United States42823 Posts
On November 07 2016 15:55 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:49 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:43 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:38 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:27 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:20 plasmidghost wrote:
[quote]
Okay, I'll admit that I don't know how the electoral college members are chosen then, I thought they were chosen by the political parties then voted for whatever the people chose That's pretty much how it works, but "the party is who shows up" and the people (Democratic party of Washington) that showed up didn't even endorse Hillary, we endorsed Bernie (this is after Hillary had "won" the nomination, but before the national convention). On November 07 2016 15:20 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The elector isn't the representative of just the party. The elector is responsible to the people of the state as a whole to carry out their will and if their will at the ballot box is Hillary then the constitution gives him no authority to overrule that. The Supreme Court will slap him down if he tries, as they must to preserve American democracy. You know this has happened before right? Not in a way that sets a precedent. I don't think it can technically swing the election (Republicans in the house could say "Trump got more electoral college votes so we give it to him", but that would just be scapegoating, they would still have full control). The optics of the US forcing a Native American to vote for Hillary against his will would be too damn symbolic. #NoDAPL Still wondering what law/rule would be used to force him to vote for her, and extremely curious what they would threaten him with. EDIT: Doesn't seem like you know how they could do it, just assertively stating that's the way it is without knowing it to be true? They wouldn't threaten him with shit. They would just take away his vote and give it to Hillary. You're not getting this. It's no different than it Queen Elizabeth decided we were going back to absolute monarchy. They'd just abdicate her and find someone who would play the part. Sure, on paper she's allowed to do whatever the fuck she wants but we all know how the fuck the system is meant to work and wouldn't tolerate someone fucking it up because tradition. Seriously, you've lost the plot at this point if you think the election is going to be decided by rogue electoral college voters. They're a tradition that continues to exist because they don't invoke their power in a way that makes it obvious that they're outdated and need to be abolished. The moment they do, they'll be fixed. lol I literally said in the post you quoted I don't think it could be decided by him. So your saying there's some way for them to take away his ability to cast his vote and they can just replace it with the vote they want? The state party, and other dems that have looked into said that wasn't true, which is why I keep asking for you to cite something backing up your opinion. At this point I have to just presume you're talking out of your ass. I don't need to cite shit to explain to you that it wouldn't be allowed in any scenario in which it mattered. I just need to not be a complete fucking moron to know that the Supreme Court would never uphold it. They're traditional roles which continue only because they don't fuck up the working of the system. If they fucked it up they'd be slapped back into place. So basically you're saying that they still won't do anything because it won't change the election (which is what I said already), so you're arguing about what exactly? You said Trump only needed 269 to win because of your dude deciding that he gets to decide on behalf of the people of Washington. That's what started this. You named that specific instance of Trump getting 269 as a situation in which this would matter because your guy would make him win. if it's the 269-269 scenario she'll actually only get 268 Now you're trying to insist that you were actually talking about every situation except the one you specifically stated that you were talking about. Go home GH, you're drunk. To be technically correct, Trump cannot win with 269. The President must be elected as per the 12th Amendment which stipulates that the President must have a majority of the EC votes. Thus, you need 270. If the situation does arise where it is 269-268-1, then the House decides (well, it's a little more complex since it involves a quorum, and 1 vote per state, blah blah blah read 12th Amendment). If this does happen I suspect Trump wins because the GOP controls the House, but regardless I suspect that there would be a new push to change the 12th Amendment (and no the SCOTUS cannot unilaterally do that as much as you think they would/could).
Wegandi, I'm pretty sure that the rest of America left behind your literalist reading of the constitutional process at least a hundred years ago. I know you mean your posts in earnest and you genuinely think you're correct in your assessment of how things should be but given that none of the organs of power seem to agree with you I'm really not sure that anything you think about the process matters. You can, and do, insist that they're doing it wrong but they're not going to stop just because you think they should.
|
On November 07 2016 15:51 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:41 CobaltBlu wrote:
Nobody would care if he is native american. Deciding to invalidate the votes of the citizens you represent is an obnoxious power trip. Again, the people who put him there knew this was a possibility. If the citizens had a problem with it, they shouldn't have elected him. When exactly did the citizens put him there? I've never once voted for my electors, or even had an opportunity to learn their names. I'm a little unclear where you stand here GH, do you disagree that an elector who (hypothetically) swings the election by voting against what his voters decided is an undemocratic piece of shit who disenfranchises his constituents and shits up our entire political system?
Most people in the US are all ready "disenfranchised", and again, we're not a Democracy. My vote doesn't matter living in Hawaii. Sure, I get the illusion that it does, but it's no different than the above. If you're a republican living in a Democratic state, your vote doesn't matter and vice versa. If you happen to have views outside of either party, well, then you're totally SOL because your vote doesn't matter anywhere. Thus, the nature of a winner-take-all system. So, before we go on about how the world would end if this happened, well, most people are all ready disenfranchised in this country. By the way, why do people wait before changing the 12th Amendment until the "impossible" happens. Personally, I'd love to see the shitstorm ensue if the EC was 269-268-1. Talk about hysteria. It would make 2000 look like childs play, especially when Trump is the "burn down the ground" candidate. There's some irony there :p
|
On November 07 2016 15:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:55 Wegandi wrote:On November 07 2016 15:49 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:43 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:38 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:27 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
That's pretty much how it works, but "the party is who shows up" and the people (Democratic party of Washington) that showed up didn't even endorse Hillary, we endorsed Bernie (this is after Hillary had "won" the nomination, but before the national convention).
[quote]
You know this has happened before right? Not in a way that sets a precedent. I don't think it can technically swing the election (Republicans in the house could say "Trump got more electoral college votes so we give it to him", but that would just be scapegoating, they would still have full control). The optics of the US forcing a Native American to vote for Hillary against his will would be too damn symbolic. #NoDAPL Still wondering what law/rule would be used to force him to vote for her, and extremely curious what they would threaten him with. EDIT: Doesn't seem like you know how they could do it, just assertively stating that's the way it is without knowing it to be true? They wouldn't threaten him with shit. They would just take away his vote and give it to Hillary. You're not getting this. It's no different than it Queen Elizabeth decided we were going back to absolute monarchy. They'd just abdicate her and find someone who would play the part. Sure, on paper she's allowed to do whatever the fuck she wants but we all know how the fuck the system is meant to work and wouldn't tolerate someone fucking it up because tradition. Seriously, you've lost the plot at this point if you think the election is going to be decided by rogue electoral college voters. They're a tradition that continues to exist because they don't invoke their power in a way that makes it obvious that they're outdated and need to be abolished. The moment they do, they'll be fixed. lol I literally said in the post you quoted I don't think it could be decided by him. So your saying there's some way for them to take away his ability to cast his vote and they can just replace it with the vote they want? The state party, and other dems that have looked into said that wasn't true, which is why I keep asking for you to cite something backing up your opinion. At this point I have to just presume you're talking out of your ass. I don't need to cite shit to explain to you that it wouldn't be allowed in any scenario in which it mattered. I just need to not be a complete fucking moron to know that the Supreme Court would never uphold it. They're traditional roles which continue only because they don't fuck up the working of the system. If they fucked it up they'd be slapped back into place. So basically you're saying that they still won't do anything because it won't change the election (which is what I said already), so you're arguing about what exactly? You said Trump only needed 269 to win because of your dude deciding that he gets to decide on behalf of the people of Washington. That's what started this. You named that specific instance of Trump getting 269 as a situation in which this would matter because your guy would make him win. if it's the 269-269 scenario she'll actually only get 268 Now you're trying to insist that you were actually talking about every situation except the one you specifically stated that you were talking about. Go home GH, you're drunk. To be technically correct, Trump cannot win with 269. The President must be elected as per the 12th Amendment which stipulates that the President must have a majority of the EC votes. Thus, you need 270. If the situation does arise where it is 269-268-1, then the House decides (well, it's a little more complex since it involves a quorum, and 1 vote per state, blah blah blah read 12th Amendment). If this does happen I suspect Trump wins because the GOP controls the House, but regardless I suspect that there would be a new push to change the 12th Amendment (and no the SCOTUS cannot unilaterally do that as much as you think they would/could). Wegandi, I'm pretty sure that the rest of America left behind your literalist reading of the constitutional process at least a hundred years ago. I know you mean your posts in earnest and you genuinely think you're correct in your assessment of how things should be but given that none of the organs of power seem to agree with you I'm really not sure that anything you think about the process matters. You can, and do, insist that they're doing it wrong but they're not going to stop just because you think they should.
There's a Scalia joke in there somewhere I know it... He may be using an "outdated literal" interpretation, but what interpretation are you using? Seems like the "Kwark's reading of the US Constitution and unwritten footnotes" freshly published from your arse?
|
On November 07 2016 15:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:55 Wegandi wrote:On November 07 2016 15:49 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:43 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:38 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:27 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
That's pretty much how it works, but "the party is who shows up" and the people (Democratic party of Washington) that showed up didn't even endorse Hillary, we endorsed Bernie (this is after Hillary had "won" the nomination, but before the national convention).
[quote]
You know this has happened before right? Not in a way that sets a precedent. I don't think it can technically swing the election (Republicans in the house could say "Trump got more electoral college votes so we give it to him", but that would just be scapegoating, they would still have full control). The optics of the US forcing a Native American to vote for Hillary against his will would be too damn symbolic. #NoDAPL Still wondering what law/rule would be used to force him to vote for her, and extremely curious what they would threaten him with. EDIT: Doesn't seem like you know how they could do it, just assertively stating that's the way it is without knowing it to be true? They wouldn't threaten him with shit. They would just take away his vote and give it to Hillary. You're not getting this. It's no different than it Queen Elizabeth decided we were going back to absolute monarchy. They'd just abdicate her and find someone who would play the part. Sure, on paper she's allowed to do whatever the fuck she wants but we all know how the fuck the system is meant to work and wouldn't tolerate someone fucking it up because tradition. Seriously, you've lost the plot at this point if you think the election is going to be decided by rogue electoral college voters. They're a tradition that continues to exist because they don't invoke their power in a way that makes it obvious that they're outdated and need to be abolished. The moment they do, they'll be fixed. lol I literally said in the post you quoted I don't think it could be decided by him. So your saying there's some way for them to take away his ability to cast his vote and they can just replace it with the vote they want? The state party, and other dems that have looked into said that wasn't true, which is why I keep asking for you to cite something backing up your opinion. At this point I have to just presume you're talking out of your ass. I don't need to cite shit to explain to you that it wouldn't be allowed in any scenario in which it mattered. I just need to not be a complete fucking moron to know that the Supreme Court would never uphold it. They're traditional roles which continue only because they don't fuck up the working of the system. If they fucked it up they'd be slapped back into place. So basically you're saying that they still won't do anything because it won't change the election (which is what I said already), so you're arguing about what exactly? You said Trump only needed 269 to win because of your dude deciding that he gets to decide on behalf of the people of Washington. That's what started this. You named that specific instance of Trump getting 269 as a situation in which this would matter because your guy would make him win. if it's the 269-269 scenario she'll actually only get 268 Now you're trying to insist that you were actually talking about every situation except the one you specifically stated that you were talking about. Go home GH, you're drunk. To be technically correct, Trump cannot win with 269. The President must be elected as per the 12th Amendment which stipulates that the President must have a majority of the EC votes. Thus, you need 270. If the situation does arise where it is 269-268-1, then the House decides (well, it's a little more complex since it involves a quorum, and 1 vote per state, blah blah blah read 12th Amendment). If this does happen I suspect Trump wins because the GOP controls the House, but regardless I suspect that there would be a new push to change the 12th Amendment (and no the SCOTUS cannot unilaterally do that as much as you think they would/could). Wegandi, I'm pretty sure that the rest of America left behind your literalist reading of the constitutional process at least a hundred years ago. I know you mean your posts in earnest and you genuinely think you're correct in your assessment of how things should be but given that none of the organs of power seem to agree with you I'm really not sure that anything you think about the process matters. You can, and do, insist that they're doing it wrong but they're not going to stop just because you think they should.
If the words on the paper don't matter, then why have the document in the first place? If the SCOTUS decides to unilaterally change the 12th Amendment that would have way more far reaching implications (and societal unrest) than actually you know, following what the 12th Amendment says in plain damn English. If you think you saw riots because of BLM, well, that would have nothing on what half the population would do if what you say you think should happen, happens (and a good number of politicians would be beyond livid as well). Go ahead though, Mr. Brit, do implore me on how wrong I am about my own countries system of Governance.
|
United States42823 Posts
On November 07 2016 16:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:59 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:55 Wegandi wrote:On November 07 2016 15:49 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:43 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:38 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:27 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Not in a way that sets a precedent. I don't think it can technically swing the election (Republicans in the house could say "Trump got more electoral college votes so we give it to him", but that would just be scapegoating, they would still have full control). The optics of the US forcing a Native American to vote for Hillary against his will would be too damn symbolic. #NoDAPL Still wondering what law/rule would be used to force him to vote for her, and extremely curious what they would threaten him with. EDIT: Doesn't seem like you know how they could do it, just assertively stating that's the way it is without knowing it to be true? They wouldn't threaten him with shit. They would just take away his vote and give it to Hillary. You're not getting this. It's no different than it Queen Elizabeth decided we were going back to absolute monarchy. They'd just abdicate her and find someone who would play the part. Sure, on paper she's allowed to do whatever the fuck she wants but we all know how the fuck the system is meant to work and wouldn't tolerate someone fucking it up because tradition. Seriously, you've lost the plot at this point if you think the election is going to be decided by rogue electoral college voters. They're a tradition that continues to exist because they don't invoke their power in a way that makes it obvious that they're outdated and need to be abolished. The moment they do, they'll be fixed. lol I literally said in the post you quoted I don't think it could be decided by him. So your saying there's some way for them to take away his ability to cast his vote and they can just replace it with the vote they want? The state party, and other dems that have looked into said that wasn't true, which is why I keep asking for you to cite something backing up your opinion. At this point I have to just presume you're talking out of your ass. I don't need to cite shit to explain to you that it wouldn't be allowed in any scenario in which it mattered. I just need to not be a complete fucking moron to know that the Supreme Court would never uphold it. They're traditional roles which continue only because they don't fuck up the working of the system. If they fucked it up they'd be slapped back into place. So basically you're saying that they still won't do anything because it won't change the election (which is what I said already), so you're arguing about what exactly? You said Trump only needed 269 to win because of your dude deciding that he gets to decide on behalf of the people of Washington. That's what started this. You named that specific instance of Trump getting 269 as a situation in which this would matter because your guy would make him win. if it's the 269-269 scenario she'll actually only get 268 Now you're trying to insist that you were actually talking about every situation except the one you specifically stated that you were talking about. Go home GH, you're drunk. To be technically correct, Trump cannot win with 269. The President must be elected as per the 12th Amendment which stipulates that the President must have a majority of the EC votes. Thus, you need 270. If the situation does arise where it is 269-268-1, then the House decides (well, it's a little more complex since it involves a quorum, and 1 vote per state, blah blah blah read 12th Amendment). If this does happen I suspect Trump wins because the GOP controls the House, but regardless I suspect that there would be a new push to change the 12th Amendment (and no the SCOTUS cannot unilaterally do that as much as you think they would/could). Wegandi, I'm pretty sure that the rest of America left behind your literalist reading of the constitutional process at least a hundred years ago. I know you mean your posts in earnest and you genuinely think you're correct in your assessment of how things should be but given that none of the organs of power seem to agree with you I'm really not sure that anything you think about the process matters. You can, and do, insist that they're doing it wrong but they're not going to stop just because you think they should. There's a Scalia joke in there somewhere I know it... He may be using an "outdated literal" interpretation, but what interpretation are you using? Seems like the "Kwark's reading of the US Constitution and unwritten footnotes" freshly published from your arse?
Okay, so, in 2004 when an elector decided to nominate "John Ewards" for President, do you really think they'd have held it to that if it mattered? Sure, it's funny when you go "how fucking drunk must he have been that night when he forgot Kerry was the candidate and couldn't even spell Edwards?" but there is no way that if it mattered they'd insist that Kerry didn't have enough because John Ewards, an unknown candidate who didn't appear on the ballot, had won an electoral college vote.
|
On November 07 2016 15:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:51 ChristianS wrote:On November 07 2016 15:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:41 CobaltBlu wrote:
Nobody would care if he is native american. Deciding to invalidate the votes of the citizens you represent is an obnoxious power trip. Again, the people who put him there knew this was a possibility. If the citizens had a problem with it, they shouldn't have elected him. When exactly did the citizens put him there? I've never once voted for my electors, or even had an opportunity to learn their names. I'm a little unclear where you stand here GH, do you disagree that an elector who (hypothetically) swings the election by voting against what his voters decided is an undemocratic piece of shit who disenfranchises his constituents and shits up our entire political system? Not sure what state you're in, but I voted for him, and fully support his decision, so no (though circumstances matter). If he hadn't told people that he may do this, if people didn't get to choose him, if he was instead voting for Trump, etc... But that's not the case here. Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:54 CobaltBlu wrote:On November 07 2016 15:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:41 CobaltBlu wrote:
Nobody would care if he is native american. Deciding to invalidate the votes of the citizens you represent is an obnoxious power trip. Again, the people who put him there knew this was a possibility. If the citizens had a problem with it, they shouldn't have elected him. That's because it is mainly a ceremonial role. No one expects a small group of people to get together and attempt to elect someone to invalidate their votes in a general election. He told them, that they didn't believe him is on them. That they just presumed he would do it anyway is a bit of divine justice.
So in short, because of this guy's preferences, Hillary isn't on the ballot for his constituents? They can bubble it in, but it's not an option. How is that justified? Most Americans, myself included, have no idea where the electors even come from, so it's not like you can say all of those people voting Hillary in the general election knew that was what the guy would do.
|
On November 07 2016 16:01 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:51 ChristianS wrote:On November 07 2016 15:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:41 CobaltBlu wrote:
Nobody would care if he is native american. Deciding to invalidate the votes of the citizens you represent is an obnoxious power trip. Again, the people who put him there knew this was a possibility. If the citizens had a problem with it, they shouldn't have elected him. When exactly did the citizens put him there? I've never once voted for my electors, or even had an opportunity to learn their names. I'm a little unclear where you stand here GH, do you disagree that an elector who (hypothetically) swings the election by voting against what his voters decided is an undemocratic piece of shit who disenfranchises his constituents and shits up our entire political system? Most people in the US are all ready "disenfranchised", and again, we're not a Democracy. My vote doesn't matter living in Hawaii. Sure, I get the illusion that it does, but it's no different than the above. If you're a republican living in a Democratic state, your vote doesn't matter and vice versa. If you happen to have views outside of either party, well, then you're totally SOL because your vote doesn't matter anywhere. Thus, the nature of a winner-take-all system. So, before we go on about how the world would end if this happened, well, most people are all ready disenfranchised in this country. By the way, why do people wait before changing the 12th Amendment until the "impossible" happens. Personally, I'd love to see the shitstorm ensue if the EC was 269-268-1. Talk about hysteria. It would make 2000 look like childs play, especially when Trump is the "burn down the ground" candidate. There's some irony there :p
Not really. Vote percentages get looked at. You better believe if we had a few popular/electoral splits in succession there'd be a huge outcry. Like, it's technically possible to win the presidency with 22% of the popular vote, but there would be a massive outcry against any such result. This is part of why it matters for everybody to vote. These numbers get looked at as mattering. They affect the degree to which your demographic group's preferences are accounted for around the country.
I don't actually think legal machinery exists to force faithless electors to be faithful in most states, but I do think the pressure would be inconceivable.
|
United States42823 Posts
On November 07 2016 16:05 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:59 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:55 Wegandi wrote:On November 07 2016 15:49 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:43 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:38 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:27 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Not in a way that sets a precedent. I don't think it can technically swing the election (Republicans in the house could say "Trump got more electoral college votes so we give it to him", but that would just be scapegoating, they would still have full control). The optics of the US forcing a Native American to vote for Hillary against his will would be too damn symbolic. #NoDAPL Still wondering what law/rule would be used to force him to vote for her, and extremely curious what they would threaten him with. EDIT: Doesn't seem like you know how they could do it, just assertively stating that's the way it is without knowing it to be true? They wouldn't threaten him with shit. They would just take away his vote and give it to Hillary. You're not getting this. It's no different than it Queen Elizabeth decided we were going back to absolute monarchy. They'd just abdicate her and find someone who would play the part. Sure, on paper she's allowed to do whatever the fuck she wants but we all know how the fuck the system is meant to work and wouldn't tolerate someone fucking it up because tradition. Seriously, you've lost the plot at this point if you think the election is going to be decided by rogue electoral college voters. They're a tradition that continues to exist because they don't invoke their power in a way that makes it obvious that they're outdated and need to be abolished. The moment they do, they'll be fixed. lol I literally said in the post you quoted I don't think it could be decided by him. So your saying there's some way for them to take away his ability to cast his vote and they can just replace it with the vote they want? The state party, and other dems that have looked into said that wasn't true, which is why I keep asking for you to cite something backing up your opinion. At this point I have to just presume you're talking out of your ass. I don't need to cite shit to explain to you that it wouldn't be allowed in any scenario in which it mattered. I just need to not be a complete fucking moron to know that the Supreme Court would never uphold it. They're traditional roles which continue only because they don't fuck up the working of the system. If they fucked it up they'd be slapped back into place. So basically you're saying that they still won't do anything because it won't change the election (which is what I said already), so you're arguing about what exactly? You said Trump only needed 269 to win because of your dude deciding that he gets to decide on behalf of the people of Washington. That's what started this. You named that specific instance of Trump getting 269 as a situation in which this would matter because your guy would make him win. if it's the 269-269 scenario she'll actually only get 268 Now you're trying to insist that you were actually talking about every situation except the one you specifically stated that you were talking about. Go home GH, you're drunk. To be technically correct, Trump cannot win with 269. The President must be elected as per the 12th Amendment which stipulates that the President must have a majority of the EC votes. Thus, you need 270. If the situation does arise where it is 269-268-1, then the House decides (well, it's a little more complex since it involves a quorum, and 1 vote per state, blah blah blah read 12th Amendment). If this does happen I suspect Trump wins because the GOP controls the House, but regardless I suspect that there would be a new push to change the 12th Amendment (and no the SCOTUS cannot unilaterally do that as much as you think they would/could). Wegandi, I'm pretty sure that the rest of America left behind your literalist reading of the constitutional process at least a hundred years ago. I know you mean your posts in earnest and you genuinely think you're correct in your assessment of how things should be but given that none of the organs of power seem to agree with you I'm really not sure that anything you think about the process matters. You can, and do, insist that they're doing it wrong but they're not going to stop just because you think they should. If the words on the paper don't matter, then why have the document in the first place? If the SCOTUS decides to unilaterally change the 12th Amendment that would have way more far reaching implications (and societal unrest) than actually you know, following what the 12th Amendment says in plain damn English. If you think you saw riots because of BLM, well, that would have nothing on what half the population would do if what you say you think should happen, happens (and a good number of politicians would be beyond livid as well). Go ahead though, Mr. Brit, do implore me on how wrong I am about my own countries system of Governance.
I am no more interested in arguing this "where is it written that functioning democratic elections take precedence over tradition?" bullshit with you than I was with GH. It's no different than "where is it written that the queen can't just take over again?" or any other crazy hypothetical. The old traditions persist precisely because they do not interfere with the functioning of the elections. If there ever was a case where the two came into conflict the tradition would be amended to match the common understanding of how it ought to function.
This is common sense boys.
|
Anyone feel that Wikileaks kinda released-emails-themselves out of public relevance? I mean it's always in the background but no one and no media seems to care anymore. Assange's strategy wasn't very well thought out.
|
On November 07 2016 16:01 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 15:51 ChristianS wrote:On November 07 2016 15:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:41 CobaltBlu wrote:
Nobody would care if he is native american. Deciding to invalidate the votes of the citizens you represent is an obnoxious power trip. Again, the people who put him there knew this was a possibility. If the citizens had a problem with it, they shouldn't have elected him. When exactly did the citizens put him there? I've never once voted for my electors, or even had an opportunity to learn their names. I'm a little unclear where you stand here GH, do you disagree that an elector who (hypothetically) swings the election by voting against what his voters decided is an undemocratic piece of shit who disenfranchises his constituents and shits up our entire political system? Most people in the US are all ready "disenfranchised", and again, we're not a Democracy. My vote doesn't matter living in Hawaii. Sure, I get the illusion that it does, but it's no different than the above. If you're a republican living in a Democratic state, your vote doesn't matter and vice versa. If you happen to have views outside of either party, well, then you're totally SOL because your vote doesn't matter anywhere. Thus, the nature of a winner-take-all system. So, before we go on about how the world would end if this happened, well, most people are all ready disenfranchised in this country. By the way, why do people wait before changing the 12th Amendment until the "impossible" happens. Personally, I'd love to see the shitstorm ensue if the EC was 269-268-1. Talk about hysteria. It would make 2000 look like childs play, especially when Trump is the "burn down the ground" candidate. There's some irony there :p
Depends what you mean by "disenfranchised." Is the argument here that if we hold a vote on an initiative, and it wins 55% to 45%, the 45% have been disenfranchised? That definition seems rather broad.
On the other hand if the people of Washington vote for Hillary Clinton, but one elector with an inflated sense of self-importance votes for Jill Stein or some shit, that's literally changing their votes. There's a clear non-equivalence between literally changing people's votes and a Republican living in California.
|
On November 07 2016 16:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 16:05 Wegandi wrote:On November 07 2016 15:59 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:55 Wegandi wrote:On November 07 2016 15:49 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:43 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2016 15:38 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 15:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I don't think it can technically swing the election (Republicans in the house could say "Trump got more electoral college votes so we give it to him", but that would just be scapegoating, they would still have full control).
The optics of the US forcing a Native American to vote for Hillary against his will would be too damn symbolic. #NoDAPL
Still wondering what law/rule would be used to force him to vote for her, and extremely curious what they would threaten him with.
EDIT: Doesn't seem like you know how they could do it, just assertively stating that's the way it is without knowing it to be true? They wouldn't threaten him with shit. They would just take away his vote and give it to Hillary. You're not getting this. It's no different than it Queen Elizabeth decided we were going back to absolute monarchy. They'd just abdicate her and find someone who would play the part. Sure, on paper she's allowed to do whatever the fuck she wants but we all know how the fuck the system is meant to work and wouldn't tolerate someone fucking it up because tradition. Seriously, you've lost the plot at this point if you think the election is going to be decided by rogue electoral college voters. They're a tradition that continues to exist because they don't invoke their power in a way that makes it obvious that they're outdated and need to be abolished. The moment they do, they'll be fixed. lol I literally said in the post you quoted I don't think it could be decided by him. So your saying there's some way for them to take away his ability to cast his vote and they can just replace it with the vote they want? The state party, and other dems that have looked into said that wasn't true, which is why I keep asking for you to cite something backing up your opinion. At this point I have to just presume you're talking out of your ass. I don't need to cite shit to explain to you that it wouldn't be allowed in any scenario in which it mattered. I just need to not be a complete fucking moron to know that the Supreme Court would never uphold it. They're traditional roles which continue only because they don't fuck up the working of the system. If they fucked it up they'd be slapped back into place. So basically you're saying that they still won't do anything because it won't change the election (which is what I said already), so you're arguing about what exactly? You said Trump only needed 269 to win because of your dude deciding that he gets to decide on behalf of the people of Washington. That's what started this. You named that specific instance of Trump getting 269 as a situation in which this would matter because your guy would make him win. if it's the 269-269 scenario she'll actually only get 268 Now you're trying to insist that you were actually talking about every situation except the one you specifically stated that you were talking about. Go home GH, you're drunk. To be technically correct, Trump cannot win with 269. The President must be elected as per the 12th Amendment which stipulates that the President must have a majority of the EC votes. Thus, you need 270. If the situation does arise where it is 269-268-1, then the House decides (well, it's a little more complex since it involves a quorum, and 1 vote per state, blah blah blah read 12th Amendment). If this does happen I suspect Trump wins because the GOP controls the House, but regardless I suspect that there would be a new push to change the 12th Amendment (and no the SCOTUS cannot unilaterally do that as much as you think they would/could). Wegandi, I'm pretty sure that the rest of America left behind your literalist reading of the constitutional process at least a hundred years ago. I know you mean your posts in earnest and you genuinely think you're correct in your assessment of how things should be but given that none of the organs of power seem to agree with you I'm really not sure that anything you think about the process matters. You can, and do, insist that they're doing it wrong but they're not going to stop just because you think they should. If the words on the paper don't matter, then why have the document in the first place? If the SCOTUS decides to unilaterally change the 12th Amendment that would have way more far reaching implications (and societal unrest) than actually you know, following what the 12th Amendment says in plain damn English. If you think you saw riots because of BLM, well, that would have nothing on what half the population would do if what you say you think should happen, happens (and a good number of politicians would be beyond livid as well). Go ahead though, Mr. Brit, do implore me on how wrong I am about my own countries system of Governance. I am no more interested in arguing this "where is it written that functioning democratic elections take precedence over tradition?" bullshit with you than I was with GH. It's no different than "where is it written that the queen can't just take over again?" or any other crazy hypothetical. The old traditions persist precisely because they do not interfere with the functioning of the elections. If there ever was a case where the two came into conflict the tradition would be amended to match the common understanding of how it ought to function. This is common sense boys.
We're not talking about the British system of Government. I don't think you understand at all how the Constitution ya...know...functions. It's not a "tradition", it's the law, just as much as any other Amendment (and as much as I'd rather go back to something like the Articles of Confederation or more decentralized power, or whatever, until the Constitution is changed how it works, well, that's the way it is.) By the way, the 12th Amendment is pretty damn clear. There's no "reinterpretation" to be had there.
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.
I'd like to know how you get "has to vote for whoever their state voted for on a popular basis" there.
|
On November 07 2016 16:13 Blisse wrote:
Anyone feel that Wikileaks kinda released-emails-themselves out of public relevance? I mean it's always in the background but no one and no media seems to care anymore. Assange's strategy wasn't very well thought out.
This election was a catastrophic misplay, if you still believe their objective is as stated. If they had attacked both candidates seriously, they would be riding very high with a huge portion of the world population nevermind the American people (including myself), who are clearly receptive to the notion that these two are both crooks. But they attacked Hillary and ignored Trump, and made very clear their stance is more fundamentally anti-US (and pro-Russia) than actually anti-corruption. But honestly, I'm not sure their objectives ever were as stated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bL30150.png)
