• 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!

Have You Ever Read POTUS Election Laws?

Have You Ever Read POTUS Election Laws

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 50.0%

  • No

    Votes: 6 50.0%
  • Total voters
    12
Phys251 said:
I have already accepted the fact that we will not have a Democratic president come 2017. But that does not mean we have to have Trump. The electoral college, as antiquated as it is, was designed to prevent madmen such as Trump from taking power.
Click to expand...

Admit it! You think the whole Constitution is antiquated, written by white, rich, self absorbed, slave holding bigots. You'd love to rewrite it from scratch, with wealth redistribution as the primary objective spelled out in the preamble. You know it, and I know it. :lamo

Trump a madman, bwuahahahahaha. And you don't think Obama coming out of Rev Wright's church with his black liberation theology and social justice warrior agenda was a madman? You are dismissed.
 
Orly? said:
Yeah, screw democracy!!! Right? Who cares about votes anyway..
Click to expand...

There are some good arguments for the electoral college. Democracy isn't one of them.
 
Ikari said:
Democratic Republic, not a democracy. There's a difference.

But the EC won't be able to swing the election away from Trump, it would require too many faithless electors to pull off. Also, iirc, even with faithless electors, the EC hasn't ever swung an election for a President.
Click to expand...

No, the USA is a Federal Republic.

And yes, the winner is not likely to switch.

But it will send a YUUUGE message to trump, when he only wins 290 Electoral votes.
 
Sietske22 said:
trump won many more states?

You know that means ****. Hillary could have won 15 of the right states and won with just that.

Learn a little about Election law.
Click to expand...

Could have?

Should have?

Still bitching about the basic fact that your candidate lost....

Why? What are you hoping to accomplish....or is this just to see your words on a debate site?

You aren't going to change the inevitable....the sooner you get on with your life, the better off you will be

Just saying...:peace
 
gdgyva said:
Could have?

Should have?

Still bitching about the basic fact that your candidate lost....

Why? What are you hoping to accomplish....or is this just to see your words on a debate site?

You aren't going to change the inevitable....the sooner you get on with your life, the better off you will be

Just saying...:peace
Click to expand...

Seeing trump only get 280 Electoral Votes, rather than 306, will make it all so very worth it.
 
Sietske22 said:
Seeing trump only get 280 Electoral Votes, rather than 306, will make it all so very worth it.
Click to expand...


Does that make him less of a president?

Does it usurp any of his power?

Will anyone even remember it two, five, ten years from now?

Again...I see no point

Other than to continue to flail away at an impossible mission

Should I rename you Don Quixote?
 
Fledermaus said:
Strange... That is what the count shows.
Click to expand...

Ok its clear you have no ****ing clue about the Electoral College or how they operate as per the United States Constitution.

I expected as much.
 
Fledermaus said:
On what basis do you predict 280 vs. 306?
Click to expand...

Its a shot in the dark.

But I can guarantee you, he will not win 306 votes once they are all counted in January by the Senate.
 
Sietske22 said:
Ok its clear you have no ****ing clue about the Electoral College or how they operate as per the United States Constitution.

I expected as much.
Click to expand...

Explain rather than insult.

What have I missed?

2016 Election: Clinton vs. Trump

ElectoralVote

They seem to disagree with you. An I suspect they know far more than you about the Electoral College and how they operate.
 
Fledermaus said:
Explain rather than insult.

What have I missed?

2016 Election: Clinton vs. Trump

ElectoralVote

They seem to disagree with you. An I suspect they know far more than you about the Electoral College and how they operate.
Click to expand...

Ok I'll give you this one chance. Don't dissapoint me.

The Electoral College chooses the President.

They vote on December 19th.

According to the Constitution, no President is elected till the Electoral College votes in December and the Senate reads the votes in January.

Its not likely, but the Electoral College can choose to select a different President than the one chosen on Election Day, if they believe he is totally unqualified, dangerous to the nation, a criminal, or if he became unable to serve due to illness or death.
 
Sietske22 said:
Ok its clear you have no ****ing clue about the Electoral College or how they operate as per the United States Constitution.

I expected as much.
Click to expand...

Aren't you the same guy suggesting the Electoral College vote against the voters' wishes in states where they are mandated to vote as the voters did?
 
Sietske22 said:
Ok I'll give you this one chance. Don't dissapoint me.

The Electoral College chooses the President.

They vote on December 19th.

According to the Constitution, no President is elected till the Electoral College votes in December and the Senate reads the votes in January.

Its not likely, but the Electoral College can choose to select a different President than the one chosen on Election Day, if they believe he is totally unqualified, dangerous to the nation, a criminal, or if he became unable to serve due to illness or death.
Click to expand...

TRANSLATION: You have nothing to base your prediction of less than 306 votes for Trump.

PS - I don't care about disappointing you. It appears people who talk fact disappoint you.
 
Fledermaus said:
Aren't you the same guy suggesting the Electoral College vote against the voters' wishes in states where they are mandated to vote as the voters did?
Click to expand...

As per the Constitution. I have James Madison on my side.
 
Fledermaus said:
Except the LAW isn't on your side....

Active LAW vs. dead guy....

Hmmmmmmmm
Click to expand...

The Constitution trumps mere Congressional law.

You should know that.
 
Phoenix said:
I'll bite. It's an over simplified stating of the Tilden / Hayes Case. The legislators of the time didn't even know how to handle the situation and basically made it up as they went along. The EC does in fact make the final determination for President EXCEPT in a case where a clear majority can not be determined. This is not the case with Clinton / Trump. Trump holds a 74 vote lead. Lack of a clear majority is not likely to happen.
Click to expand...

Cant remember if I responded to this or not so just to be safe.....

Congress removed all EC votes from FOUR states in 1872 so how can you claim they didnt know how to handle removing EC votes in 1876?

The means of Congress having the final word is the authority to remove EC votes. Once they remove enough votes to prevent any candidate from achieving a majority, they can then vote for POTUS in the House. The entire reason for the ambiguity of rejecting EC votes is found in the term "regularly taken." That is all they have to agree upon and you can make that term fit almost any situation. That is how they installed Hayes over Tilden because they never proved election fraud but simply claimed election fraud.

In this case, they could argue election fraud due to Trump's repeated claims the election was rigged when he had absolutely no evidence. He then took it a step further by telling his supporters to "monitor" voting stations. That is one of the oldest tactics in election fraud and the legal definition simply states it occurs when people are discouraged from voting. Claiming it was a rigged election is discouraging voters because it says their votes will not matter anyways. They dont need to prove election fraud in court as Congress alone can reach the determination.

They could also get into how the GOP in NC sent a letter to supporters bragging about the success of their voter suppression tactics, such as closing 15 of 16 voting locations in a single county where the majority of voters were African Americans. They compared voter turn out of African Americans from 2012 to 2016 and celebrated how turnout was lower in 2016, due to their tactics.

So, Congress agrees on election fraud in several states reducing Trump's EC votes to only 269, and as authorized by the 14th Amendment, they can ban Representatives from those states from participating in the House's procedure of electing a new POTUS. Boom. New POTUS from Congress alone.
 
Sietske22 said:
No, the USA is a Federal Republic.
Click to expand...

And the EC is a reflection of the "federal" part of "Federal Republic." That you appeal to the "popular vote" shows that you may not really know what "federal" means, especially as opposed to "democratic."
 
Sietske22 said:
As per the Constitution. I have James Madison on my side.
Click to expand...

The . . . Constitution which says that electors for a state will be chosen in a manner determined by the state legislature, and no one else?
 
Sietske22 said:
trump won many more states?

You know that means ****. Hillary could have won 15 of the right states and won with just that.

Learn a little about Election law.
Click to expand...

The Constitution says it means everything.
 
Sietske22 said:
Ok I'll give you this one chance. Don't dissapoint me.

The Electoral College chooses the President.

They vote on December 19th.

According to the Constitution, no President is elected till the Electoral College votes in December and the Senate reads the votes in January.

Its not likely, but the Electoral College can choose to select a different President than the one chosen on Election Day, if they believe he is totally unqualified, dangerous to the nation, a criminal, or if he became unable to serve due to illness or death.
Click to expand...

The EC simply narrows the selection in the same way Primaries reduce the number of candidates. Even after they vote on December 19th we will still NOT have a new POTUS because Congress has to certify the EC votes in January. They do not merely count and observe because they can object to EC votes from ANY state so long as it is in writing, reason given, and signed by just one member of the House and one from the Senate.

Congress makes the final POTUS decision because they can throw out enough EC votes to prevent any candidate from achieving a majority. After that is accomplished the House votes for the new POTUS and the Senate votes for the new VP.

All of this is in the election laws in the OP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom