If the electoral college were to vote in Hillary Clinton...

[136or142]

The Republican victory was legitimate.

Prove it wasn't.

The Democrats lost because they nominated a horrible candidate, cold, calculating, establishment, who had trouble connecting with ordinary, every day, honest, hard working, tax paying Americans, not because of anything the Russians may or may not have done.

2.5 million votes say otherwise, but an antiquated system saved Trump from a loss. Besides, your man won the Presidency, so why are you even worried about how other people are perceiving the win? Really, you need to allow others to have their opinions.

Clearly, everyone is entitled to their opinions.

I never have disputed the Democrats margin in the popular vote.  Just as a point of interest, it was mainly a result of the Democrats lopsided margin in California.  But I'm sure you already know that.  

However, I also have the right to defend my party and my positions.

So, the voters of California shouldn't count as much in the popular vote as those from elsewhere?

As far as I can tell, if 270 Electoral College Electors elect somebody other than Donald Trump, as any patriotic American should hope they do, there is nothing either the Supreme Court and certainly not the Republican Congress can do to overturn who they elect as President.

The Republicans here seem to be just like Donald Trump: I like the rules when they go my way but I'll whine like the little baby I am when they don't.

If you support the Electoral College either because of the 'protect the small states' or simply because Trump has nominally won the election under it (and almost certainly will be elected by them) then you have to support the entire Electoral College as written in the Constitution, and, though it has never been tested in court, it seems pretty clear to me that the Constitution says on this that the Electors can vote for whoever they like. (And in all but 3 states the penalty is no more than a nominal fine.)

So, according to the Constitution, the person who receives 270 electoral college votes is, by definition, the legitimate winner.

[136or142]

Let's not do that. Trump won under the rules of the system. Hillary said that a refusal to accept the results of the election would be 'horrifying'. I agree. The results were that Trump won. And so, as much as I personally hate that outcome, I accept it as legitimate and he will be the President.

Except he hasn't.  The full rules of the system are that the Electoral College Electors, and they alone decide who gets to be President if a majority of them decide on a single person.

Under the Constitution, the real Presidential election is held December 19.

I would be very surprised if they didn't vote for Trump, but the electoral college method for overriding the popular national vote is not the full part of the system.

The full part of the system is that the public votes directly not for the President, but for these Electors who then elect the President.

You can argue that has become just a formality, but the Constitution has never been amended to reflect that.  So, according to the Constitution, in fact, it isn't just a formality.

I realize that there is some debate on this and a recent lower court ruling disagrees with what I wrote, but only three states have laws to throw out the votes of faithless electors and all of the other states with rules on this have just a fairly nominal fine as a penalty.

So, for the most part, de facto, nearly all the Electors can vote for whoever they want to, and if they so choose, they are under no obligation to vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.

Is that an illegitimate vote for them to do so?  One can argue morally so, but under the Constitution that is, in fact, the legitimate process.

[136or142]

Except he hasn't.  The full rules of the system are that the Electoral College Electors, and they alone decide who gets to be President if a majority of them decide on a single person.

Actually, no.  They have power conditionally delegated to them by their respective states.  And rule of law in each of the 50 states obligates them in a generally uniform way, i.e., they must vote according to the popular vote in their states.  (Yes, it varies somewhat by state.)

To suggest they have some supra-Constitutional power to ignore their state laws regarding their obligations under state laws is a essentially usurpation of power held by each individual state.

The language is: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors [...]".

The phrasing "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" is a pretty clear indication that the power that the Electors hold is ultimately vested in the state legislature, and they delegate according to state law.

First of all, I disagree.  My reading, which is backed up by the Federalist Papers is that the method of appointment is left up to the state, but that how the Electors vote is entirely the Electors own choice.  It ultimately comes down to how that clause is parsed, but  the Federalist Papers are quite clear on this.

This has never been tested in court, but there have been many cases of faithless electors before including a revolt in Virginia in the 1800s that left the election up to the House of Representatives before and this has never led to a court challenge.

So, now it has and we'll see where it goes.  However, as I also wrote, only three states have rules for the votes of their Electors to be tossed out if they don't vote as directed and in all of the other states is mostly a nominal fine.  The hyper partisan Republican Secretary of State of Colorado is threatening to charge that states Electors with perjury if they don't vote as directed but like with a lot of dimwitted bullies like him, I'm pretty positive this is nothing but a meaningless threat.

Edit: Also, this may be selection bias on my part, but as far as I can tell most Constitutional lawyers interpret this clause in the Constitution the way that I've described it here.

[136or142]

The Republican victory was legitimate.

Prove it wasn't.

The Democrats lost because they nominated a horrible candidate, cold, calculating, establishment, who had trouble connecting with ordinary, every day, honest, hard working, tax paying Americans, not because of anything the Russians may or may not have done.

2.5 million votes say otherwise, but an antiquated system saved Trump from a loss. Besides, your man won the Presidency, so why are you even worried about how other people are perceiving the win? Really, you need to allow others to have their opinions.

Clearly, everyone is entitled to their opinions.

I never have disputed the Democrats margin in the popular vote.  Just as a point of interest, it was mainly a result of the Democrats lopsided margin in California.  But I'm sure you already know that.  

However, I also have the right to defend my party and my positions.

So, the voters of California shouldn't count as much in the popular vote as those from elsewhere?

As far as I can tell, if 270 Electoral College Electors elect somebody other than Donald Trump, as any patriotic American should hope they do, there is nothing either the Supreme Court and certainly not the Republican Congress can do to overturn who they elect as President.

The Republicans here seem to be just like Donald Trump: I like the rules when they go my way but I'll whine like the little baby I am when they don't.

If you support the Electoral College either because of the 'protect the small states' or simply because Trump has nominally won the election under it (and almost certainly will be elected by them) then you have to support the entire Electoral College as written in the Constitution, and, though it has never been tested in court, it seems pretty clear to me that the Constitution says on this that the Electors can vote for whoever they like. (And in all but 3 states the penalty is no more than a nominal fine.)

So, according to the Constitution, the person who receives 270 electoral college votes is, by definition, the legitimate winner.

Each voter in California counts as much as any other voter in California.  Ditto Idaho.  Ditto Rhode Island.

Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims are cases that apply to reapportionment of state and local Governments and apportionment to the US House.  It doesn't upset the Senate, where Idaho and California have the same number of Senators.  And it doesn't change the fact that 582,658 Wyoming residents have merely one (1) Rep. in Congress, the same as Delaware and its 925,749 residents.

Your candidate lost because she stunk.   If she were decent, she would have won.  And she had the most arrogant campaign staff with hubris beyond measure.  They stunk, too.

If you've got some kind of proof of vote-counting machinery being rigged, let's have at it.  I'm for manual hand counts of paper ballots in all 50 states if that's what it takes for folks to feel OK with this election.  Otherwise, I would suggest that taking your defeat like an adult may well serve you in good stead when you live to fight another day.

I never commented on any of the things that you are referring to, so I have no idea what this is in response to.  Anybody who voted for the man-child Donald Trump as President turning around and telling other people to act like adults is laughable.