• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rogue electors brief Clinton camp on anti-Trump plan

buck said:
Read the OP. The electors are in CO and WA. Those are states that went dem and their electors are democrat. You are right. That wasn't difficult at all.
Click to expand...

Nice stump..

:applaud

Must be something in the water, rogue elector fever..

Russians?
 
apdst said:
The 12th Amendment didn't change who the electors could vote for.
Click to expand...

Nope, and neither did Article 2. Neither states that any elector is required to vote for whoever won the popular vote of his or her state.
 
Now comes the fun part, and my explanation of why a stunt like this won't work. A law, passed in 1887, states that, if there is a dispute over electors, Congress gets to resolve it. Since Congress is Republican, we already know what the result is going to be.

But the thread was loads of fun. :mrgreen:
 
danarhea said:
Nope, and neither did Article 2. Neither states that any elector is required to vote for whoever won the popular vote of his or her state.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are. They always have been.
 
apdst said:
Yes, they are. They always have been.
Click to expand...

Prove it. Show me where it says what you claim, and I'll show you your lack of reading comprehension. :).

And, BTW, there have been a total of 157 faithless electors since elections began, although 72 of them cast their vote differently because winner of those states died before the EV counting began.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Prove it. Show me where it says what you claim, and I'll show you your lack of reading comprehension. :).

And, BTW, there have been a total of 157 faithless electors since elections began, although 72 of them cast their vote differently because winner of those states died before the EV counting began.
Click to expand...

They're states require them to cast their vote to the candidate that won the popular vote. The electors can vote for any name they're given, this true and the name they're given is the candidate that won the popular vote.

My lack of reading comprehension? Lol...you're one claiming The Constitution says something about pledged electors. :lamo
 
Thirty-seven electors. That's all we need. Then the election would go to the House.

I'd use this to trade a Trump presidency for, say, a Romney presidency in a heartbeat.
 
apdst said:
They're states require them to cast their vote to the candidate that won the popular vote. The electors can vote for any name they're given, this true and the name they're given is the candidate that won the popular vote.

My lack of reading comprehension? Lol...you're one claiming The Constitution says something about pledged electors. :lamo
Click to expand...

Except that the electors aren't required to vote for any certain candidate. The SCOTUS has affirmed thier right to vote for anyone constitutionally eligible.
 
Crovax said:
Except that the electors aren't required to vote for any certain candidate. The SCOTUS has affirmed thier right to vote for anyone constitutionally eligible.
Click to expand...

There's no way that could be legally binding.
 
danarhea said:
This is a long shot but, if it works, it will turn politics on it's head, and may signal the beginning of the end of the electoral college as we know it.

Some rogue Republican electors are talking with the Clinton camp, the goal being to have Hillary releasing all her electors to vote for Dennis Kasich on December 19th, when the electoral votes are formally submitted. This will be a tall order. In addition to flipping enough Trump electors to vote for Kasich, Hillary will probably need to overturn the results in one of the 3 recounts states, then pledge those electors, as well as the rest of her electors to Kasich. In Colorado, where it is illegal for an elector to vote for anyone other than the winner of the popular vote in that state, a lawsuit is being filed tomorrow by Republican electors to overturn that law, and they are going to request an emergency hearing.

IMHO, this isn't going to fly, but what will fly will be the fur. This may turn out to be the first political food fight in the History of the United States, and Trump may enter office as "damaged goods", assuming he prevails. The Clinton camp is quiet at this time, and the reason may be the opportunity for her to claim plausible deniability on her part. Hillary may possibly turn out to be a reincarnation of Machiavelli himself. Crooked? You bet your ass she is.

I am about to get me barrels of beer and buckets of pop corn before settling down to watch the mayhem, which may or may not happen. One thing for sure is that there are a few Republican electors around who are not going to cast their vote for Trump under any circumstances whatsoever. Will the GOP split if they go ahead and attempt this? Nope. The party will explode, whether or not these faithless electors succeed. My prediction? This attempt will fail, if it does take off, but it will damn fun to watch.

Rogue electors brief Clinton camp on anti-Trump plan - POLITICO
Click to expand...

It won't happen. There may be a few that turn but not enough that will make any difference. I ran across an article that talked about some electors in Colorado not voting for Clinton in order to keep Trump out of the White House. I have no idea how they think that will work. Colorado is a winner take all state. Clinton won Colorado. I have no idea how they figure not casting their electoral votes for Clinton will keep Trump out of the White House.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I've actually raised this point in another thread:



I'm betting that while Hillary would never openly endorse anything like this, she would be happy at any chance which leads to her selection into the history books as the first "Woman" President, no matter how nefarious. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

Why change now?
 
Phys251 said:
Thirty-seven electors. That's all we need. Then the election would go to the House.

I'd use this to trade a Trump presidency for, say, a Romney presidency in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...

I guess if you are going to dream then dream big.
 
danarhea said:
Alexander Hamilton might agree with you on that one. LOL.
Click to expand...

tumblr_static_tumblr_static_filename_640.gif


ba3.jpg_large
 
Last edited:
Phys251 said:
Thirty-seven electors. That's all we need. Then the election would go to the House.

I'd use this to trade a Trump presidency for, say, a Romney presidency in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...

Look at it this way... if Hillary had won, what do you think that chances are that HER electors would vote for someone else? Remember, she is the most corrupt candidate in recent memory and barley dodged criminal charges WHILE she was running.
 
danarhea said:
This is a long shot but, if it works, it will turn politics on it's head, and may signal the beginning of the end of the electoral college as we know it.

Some rogue Republican electors are talking with the Clinton camp, the goal being to have Hillary releasing all her electors to vote for Dennis Kasich on December 19th, when the electoral votes are formally submitted. This will be a tall order. In addition to flipping enough Trump electors to vote for Kasich, Hillary will probably need to overturn the results in one of the 3 recounts states, then pledge those electors, as well as the rest of her electors to Kasich. In Colorado, where it is illegal for an elector to vote for anyone other than the winner of the popular vote in that state, a lawsuit is being filed tomorrow by Republican electors to overturn that law, and they are going to request an emergency hearing.

IMHO, this isn't going to fly, but what will fly will be the fur. This may turn out to be the first political food fight in the History of the United States, and Trump may enter office as "damaged goods", assuming he prevails. The Clinton camp is quiet at this time, and the reason may be the opportunity for her to claim plausible deniability on her part. Hillary may possibly turn out to be a reincarnation of Machiavelli himself. Crooked? You bet your ass she is.

I am about to get me barrels of beer and buckets of pop corn before settling down to watch the mayhem, which may or may not happen. One thing for sure is that there are a few Republican electors around who are not going to cast their vote for Trump under any circumstances whatsoever. Will the GOP split if they go ahead and attempt this? Nope. The party will explode, whether or not these faithless electors succeed. My prediction? This attempt will fail, if it does take off, but it will damn fun to watch.

Rogue electors brief Clinton camp on anti-Trump plan - POLITICO
Click to expand...

I'm confused. Do you mean John (not Dennis) Kasich from Ohio? If so, why Kasich of all people?
 
Crovax said:
Except that the electors aren't required to vote for any certain candidate. The SCOTUS has affirmed thier right to vote for anyone constitutionally eligible.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I tried to explain this to him several times, but it keeps going in one ear and out the other, while he attempts to derail the topic by taking things I say out of context. He is pretty dishonest, so I'm ignoring him now. LOL.
 
Last edited:
Crovax said:
Except that the electors aren't required to vote for any certain candidate. The SCOTUS has affirmed thier right to vote for anyone constitutionally eligible.
Click to expand...

Actually, in 29 states, there are state laws that require electors to vote for the candidate who won that state, although a Federal lawsuit is being filed this morning to challenge those laws. But that does leave 21 states where electors can vote for whoever they want RIGHT NOW, even Bozo the Clown, if they so choose. Let the mayhem begin. LOL.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Actually, in 29 states, there are state laws that require electors to vote for the candidate who won that state. But that does leave 21 states where electors can vote for whoever they want.
Click to expand...

No where does it say that the electors can go against the will of the people.
 
apdst said:
No where does it say that the electors can go against the will of the people.
Click to expand...

I never said it did. I said that there was nothing in the constitution REQUIRING electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote. I also said there was nothing in the Constitution REQUIRING electors to vote for any delegates which were pledged by any political party. You responded by taking what I said out of context.

You, sir, are not only a liar, but a complete idiot as well.
 
danarhea said:
Read Federalist Paper Number 68, which encourages electors to vote their conscience. This is the reason for electors in the first place.
Click to expand...

I think at this particular juncture electors acting against the will of the voters would do far more damage to our cultural fabric than good. Also IMHO we are risking a level of social unrest that we have not seen in our country since the civil war.

Is that worth the idealism of electors voting their conscience at this time?

IMHO that sort of move should be in the case the country is in dire danger. Obviously many do not like Trump. But the country is in no dire danger from him being president. We have survived much worse threats even in that office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom